Richard M. Riss
Christian Evidences, Part I
THE IMPORTANCE AND VALIDITY OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
As Christians, we are enjoined in I Peter 3:15 to sanctify
Christ as Lord in our hearts, always being ready to make a
defense to every one who asks us to give an account for the hope
that is in us, yet with gentleness and reverence.
The word "apologetics" is taken from the Greek word ,
translated "defense" in this passage. The same word is used in
Philippians 1:16, where the apostle Paul states that he knows
that he is "appointed for the defense of the gospel."
The validity of Christian apologetics, or of the defense of
the gospel, is taken for granted in the New Testament. This is
particularly clear in the book of Acts, which is filled with
accounts of the defense of the faith by Peter and John, Stephen,
Paul, and other leaders of the Church, all of whom were prepared
to lay down their very lives in the defense of the Gospel.
Not all of the early Christian leaders were intellectuals,
but all of them defended the Gospel. The task of apologetics is
for all Christians. All people have the same questions, whether
they are sophisticated or naive and whether they are well-
educated or not.
Some Christians are fearful of the use of the intellect, or
of the use of human knowledge, in the defense of the faith. This
was certainly not the case for the apostle Paul, who was one of
the best educated people of his day. He freely conversed with
the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece about the
things of God, and defended the Gospel in their midst at the
Areopagus in Athens, and some people were brought to faith as a
result of his efforts.
If we do not make use of our own God-given intellect in the
proclamation of the Gospel, then we should not be surprised if no
one takes us seriously. Either Christianity is completely
consistent with what we know to be true of reality, or we should
not believe in Christ. The intellectual integrity of Christian
truth should always be of central concern to all people.
There is always a grave danger in the attitude that one must
not ask questions, but simply take everything on faith. This
engenders doubts unnecessarily. The heart cannot delight in what
the mind rejects as false. If there are intellectual reasons for
believing, why should we not allow people to know about them? To
do otherwise would be unkind and unfair.
We must have enough compassion to learn the questions of our
generation and answer them. The great twentieth century
apologist Francis Schaeffer understood this very well. He wrote,
"There is indeed the danger of falling into a proud
intellectualism. But there is also the danger of lacking a love
and compassion for men great enough to inspire the hard work
needed to understand men's questions and to give them honest
answers. Throughout his ministry, Paul talked to people with
this kind of love and compassion, and he wrote this way, for
example, in Romans 1-2. Christ, too, gently answered questions
and discussed issues during his earthly ministry."1
Some people will insist that even the soundest apologetic
has no power to cause anyone to repent and believe the Gospel
apart from the work of the Spirit of God and that debate and
argument can never really lead to anyone's conversion, only to
endless argument and heresy. But not every intellectual question
is a moral dodge. There are honest intellectual questions, and
they must be answered. Although it is true that apart from the
work of the Holy Spirit, the Gospel will fall upon deaf ears, and
although He creates the capacity for receiving God's truth,
nevertheless, the Spirit makes use of evidence to convince people
of the truth. We are to be ready to make a defense to those who
have questions, but we are to do so with gentleness and
reverence. Then, God will bring about conviction of the truth,
making use of whatever facts are at hand.
Other opponents of Christian apologetics will say that it
really does not matter whether the Bible is reliable
historically, or whether the Biblical world view is valid. As
far as they are concerned, as long as we are good Christians and
retain our moral standards, it makes no difference whether the
Bible is accurate. This viewpoint fails to take into account
that Christianity is not merely a philosophy or a religion. As
F. F. Bruce has pointed out, the Gospel "is intimately bound up
with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's
redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time.
. . . This historical 'once-for-all-ness' of Christianity, which
distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems
which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the
reliability of the writings which purport to record this
revelation a question of first-rate importance."2
The importance of Christian apologetics is underscored by
consideration of the role that it plays in our own deep personal
appreciation for all that God has done for us. When Thomas was
given proof for the resurrection by Jesus himself, it evoked a
spontaneous expression of worship and adoration. He suddenly
realized without doubt that it was all true, and he was ecstatic.
The Christian Gospel truly is good news to those who suddenly
understand it or recognize its truth. It means our release from
slavery to sin, disease, death and mortality, and provides for
our translation to an existence with no hint of sorrow or
sadness, but filled with unending joy in paradise. It is one
thing to hope that these things might possibly be true, but it is
quite another thing to know without doubt that these yearnings of
all of creation will actually be fulfilled. When God quickens
this knowledge to us, He does so using all available evidence.
_______________________________________
1Francis A. Schaeffer, The New Super Spirituality (Downers Grove,
Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972), p. 20.
2F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?,
fifth ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960), p. 8.
WHY THE BIBLE CANNOT BE LEGEND
Everybody knows that all historical events are interrelated.
They have observable consequences in the real world. Whenever it
is asserted that something has happened in the past, we can
always test the assertion by determining whether or not
subsequent events are best explained by it. For example, if it
is claimed that God, through Moses, visited Egypt with ten
plagues, we should ask ourselves, "what would be the results of
such an event?" What evidence do we have in our own day that
would corroborate such a claim? What if it had not taken place?
What would we expect should be true in our own day if it had not
happened? How do we best explain the existence of the Jewish
nation? Do we, in fact, know of any better possible explanation
for the release of the Jews from slavery to Egypt? What other
factors could have induced Pharaoh to give up the free slave
labor that the Egyptians had in the Jewish people? What other
explanations can be offered for all of the facts? How did
hundreds of thousands of people survive in the desert for so long
without dying of thirst if God did not miraculously provide water
for them? Or, if we hypothesize that they were not in the
wilderness, can we still adequately explain what is known to be
true on other historical grounds?
When something happens, its effects are inescapable. This
will be true whether or not the event can be classified as a
miracle. If a given event takes place, it will have certain
effects. If the effects are not there, then the hypothesized
cause cannot be there.
Thus, if Jesus Christ has really risen from the dead, there
will be certain consequences which cannot adequately be explained
apart from the resurrection. Such consequences include the
changed lives of the early Christians, the change of sabbath from
Saturday to Sunday, and the courage of the Christian martyrs, not
to mention the very existence of the Christian Church.
The marks of God's intervention in the affairs of men cannot
be erased; they have had effects that have resounded down through
the corridors of time, and having taken place, will continue to
have effects. Everything that happens brings certain results
which cannot be explained without the causes.
Consider another example. The Bible claims that God created
the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh.
If we do not accept the historicity of the creation story and of
the giving of the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, we are forced to try
to find plausible alternative explanations as to why in our own
day we have seven days in the week and why the Jewish people
celebrate a sabbath on the seventh day. Will any explanation be
fully adequate to explain these facts other than that the
Biblical accounts are trustworthy?
Every historical event is unique, and causes a unique set of
results which cannot arise under any other set of circumstances.
This makes history verifiable, and enables us to investigate any
historical claim. Moveover, the events of history are
inextricably interwoven. Every event that actually takes place
is interconnected with all others that occur at the same time and
place. To deny the historicity of a single event requires a re-
explanation of all of the circumstances surrounding its
occurrence. Biblical history and secular history are completely
interrelated. They interpenetrate each other to such a degree
that it is impossible to divorce them. A denial of Biblical
history would entail a denial of what is known about secular
history, because both are interwoven into the same fabric. The
facts recorded in the Old Testament, including the supernatural
events, are integral to the secular history of Israel and the
nations that surrounded her before the time of Christ. In the
same way, the facts recorded in the New Testament are integral to
the history of the Roman Empire. If we did not take the Bible at
face value, it would be difficult to explain the rise of
Christian faith in the midst of persecution in the Roman Empire
until it eventually became the preferred religion almost three
hundred years later.
Any historical narrative purporting to have occurred at a
particular time and place is going to have countless effects upon
both other events of that time and upon later events. Because of
the many intricacies of detail in history, it would be impossible
to invent alternate accounts of events that have already
transpired which do not have serious deficiencies in their
effectiveness in accounting for various attending circumstances.
These characteristics of history are of tremendous relevance to
the study of the Bible, which, after all, is a historical book.
It is filled with information directly relevant to the study of
ancient political entities, governments, geography, biography,
customs, languages, and history. Had the Bible, or portions
within it, been forgeries, these constant allusions to historical
data would contain countless inaccuracies and anachronisms. The
absence of such signs of forgery forces us to come to grips with
the genuineness of the Bible. It must be a record of events that
actually happened to real people at specific times and places.
There has been too much corroboration of the Biblical details,
both through archaeological findings and through other ancient
documents, for us to conclude otherwise.
Many people attempt to say that archaeology does not prove
the Bible to be true. Yet, any forgery containing enough
specific historical details will quickly betray its own
speciousness when compared with other evidence bearing upon the
times, places, and events that it describes. If you study the
archaeological evidence in confirmation of the Biblical accounts,
you find such a correspondence between the events described and
the artifacts, inscriptions, and monuments bearing upon them as
to leave very little room for doubt about the historical
trustworthiness of the Bible. If you bear in mind the vastness
of the possibilities for historical error for any ostensibly
accurate historical account, and add to it the realization that
all historical events are inextricably intertwined, it strains
your credulity to be told that the archaeological evidence in
corroboration of the Bible is not conclusive.
Another aspect to consider is geography. The Bible is
replete with extremely precise geographical details which
correspond exactly with what is presently known about the
geography of Palestine and of the other regions which form the
setting of the Biblical narratives. The Biblical accounts would
be reduced to nonsense if they alluded to various incidental
geographical factors in any way differently than they actually
do. In Joshua 10:10,11, for example, there is a description of
the retreat of the Canaanites from before Joshua and his armies.
The geographical details provided in this passage are very
precise. Those who are well versed in historical geography
recognize that this narrative could not possibly have been
fabricated, but that it is rooted in reality. Many of these
geographical factors are actually an essential part of the story,
such that without them, the events could not have taken place the
way in which they are described. The military importance of the
Central Benjamin Plateau has not changed for millennia, and its
strategic value was as clear to twentieth century Israelis as it
was to Joshua and his enemies more than three thousand years ago.
The Gibeonites had surrendered to Joshua knowing that they lived
in the territory that he would have to conquer next in order to
gain control over Palestine. Its strategic importance lay in its
position as the major approach to Jerusalem, and is underscored
by the fact that in the six-day war of 1966, when the Central
Benjamin Plateau was taken, it was announced that Israel had
taken the West Bank, although most of the West Bank had not yet
actually been taken. It was recognized on all hands, however,
that what remained was a mere matter of mop-up operations once
the Central Benjamin Plateau was in Israeli hands. In just the
same way, when the Gibeonites formed an alliance with Joshua, the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon
would have known immediately that they were very seriously
threatened. The sneak attack of the kings of these cities with
their armies against the Gibeonites would have been the logical
consequence of such an alliance. After the defeat of these
kings, their retreat along the road from Beth-Horon to Azekah
would have been their only live option. It is at this point that
the sun stood still upon Gibeon and the moon in the Aijalon
valley, enabling Joshua and his men to pursue them. On March 19,
1985, a leading present-day historical geographer of Palestine,
James M. Monson, said with respect to the geographical factors of
this narrative in Joshua that, "this is a very, very precise
description, and it's not something sort of manufactured. And
today people are saying, 'but Joshua really didn't exist.' . .
.But the geographic factors are correct, you know, because they
are so exact. We cannot deny those. So I think it's rather hard
to have some guy making up a story . . . . It takes more faith
for me to believe some guy fabricated this and it all fits nicely
than to say that this really happened." The Biblical stories are
precise in all of their details, and it is very exciting to see
how well they fit into their geographical context.
The interconnectedness of historical circumstances is as
evident in the relationship of the Bible to classical writings as
it is in its correspondence with archaeological and geographical
data. If the Bible is historically trustworthy, it should come
as no surprise that Herodotus, for example, in Book II, section
141 of his History, gives an account of Sennacherib's invasion of
II Kings 19:35. Nor should we be surprised that Megasthenes
stated that one of the Assyrian kings, when on his deathbed, said
that his empire was to be overturned by the Medes and the
Persians. While Megasthenes was astonished at this, the Bible
indicates that the king had been informed of this fact by the
prophet Daniel (Daniel 2:38-39).
There are many passing references to names, places and
events in the New Testament made by various classical writers,
many of whom were pagans, Jews, infidels, or Greeks who had no
interest in maintaining the credibility of the Christian faith.
Among them were Josephus, Philo, Cicero, Tacitus, Ulpian,
Hermogenian, Marcian, Celsus, Petronius, Dio, and Suetonius.
These writers referred to many of the same people to whom the New
Testament refers, and many of the same facts about them are
mentioned in both places. If the Bible had been legendary, all
statements made, even with casual references to accidents of
circumstance, would nevertheless have had to agree with an entire
spectrum of first-century sources bearing upon Palestine, with
all of its intricacies of geography, politics, government,
culture, and religion, a monumental task at best.
That the documents within the Bible are genuine is evident,
not only from the wealth of instances of correspondence on
incidental matters between the Bible and extrabiblical sources,
but also from innumerable cases in which there is a similar
correspondence in incidental historical matters between two or
more documents within the Bible itself. The very nature of
history is such that if a given document is authentic, it will
dovetail very easily with its historical setting. The historical
context of many documents of the Bible consists, in part, of
other Biblical documents that also bear upon the period in
question. While obvious agreement on major matters of fact can
always be the result of fabrication, if there is agreement on a
multitude of minor details, many of which bear only a very
incidental relationship to matters of major concern to the
authors, there can be very little room for doubt with respect to
the authenticity of the documents in question.
In a court of law, the purpose of the cross-examination of a
witness is to determine, among other things, whether his
testimony is consistent with itself, and whether it is consistent
with the circumstances concurrent with the events about which he
or she is testifying. A false witness will not knowingly provide
any information that might be open to contradiction. When he
testifies, he will attempt to express himself in very general
terms, with as few specifics as possible. Cross-examination
forces a witness to be specific, and if the witness is not
telling the truth, the necessity of supplying specific details
often results in contradictions which expose his testimony as
false. The Bible freely supplies details of every kind, whether
or not they are central to the topic under discussion. Such
details are supplied in abundance, a strong indication of the
trustworthiness of the testimony of the Biblical writers.
The supernatural elements in the Bible interact with the
natural; there is an imperceptible trailing off of the natural
into the supernatural and a merging of the miraculous into the
non-miraculous. There is no real possibility of separating the
miraculous from the non-miraculous elements of the Bible, as some
people have attempted to do.
People who are familiar with a wide range of literary genres
have often concluded that the Bible has an entirely different
flavor to it than accounts of mythology or legend. The miracles
of the Bible are more natural; they do not jolt the reader with a
sense of inappropriateness or incongruity. They do not seem
arbitrary, contrived, or artificial. Their effects upon other
events and upon people who witness them are believable and
realistic. The accounts in the Bible are too true to life to
have been the product of fabrication. This fact has been
established very convincingly by John. J. Blunt in his Undesigned
Coincidences.
Remember, also, that the Biblical narratives carry with them
the claim of authenticity for the very events they describe. As
Erich Auerbach wrote in Mimesis, "The Scripture stories do not,
like Homer's, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they
may please us and enchant us." Rather, they carry with them the
claim to be describing events that have really happened. The
Biblical authors believed that whatever had previously been
recorded in Scripture had actually taken place. The book of
Joshua, for example, presupposes that the events recorded in the
Pentateuch had actually happened. After Joshua sent two spies to
Jericho, Rahab the harlot hid them from the king of Jericho
because, as she said, "we have heard how the Lord dried up the
water of the Red Sea for you, when you came out of Egypt."
(Joshua 2:10). This is not an isolated example; the Bible
consistently builds upon the historicity of previously recorded
events and is intelligible only if these prior events really
happened.
People often raise an objection to Biblical infallibility
based upon the observation that there are many cases in which it
appears that the Biblical writers contradicted one another. This
is an interesting objection, because it would be much easier to
dismiss the Biblical accounts if there were no apparent
inconsistencies. One of the characteristics of false testimony
is that, while it cannot remain consistent during effective cross
examination, it is studiously consistent with that which is
asserted by any other collaborating false witnesses. The fact
that there are apparent contradictions in the Bible is one of the
strongest arguments in favor of its historicity. If the Bible
were false, those who wrote it would have been very anxious to
cover up any inconsistencies. The fact that the writers of the
Gospels did not see a need to appear uniformly consistent with
one another in relating historical facts is a strong indication
that they were eyewitnesses of the events about which they were
writing.
It is often the case that archaeological discoveries will
clear up apparent inconsistencies. For example, if two accounts
in the Bible refer to separate kings reigning at the same time
and place, an inscription might be uncovered indicating that
there was a co-reign of the two kings at the time in question.
The world view of western civilization has been changing
rapidly in the past few hundred years such that there has been a
marked departure from the Biblical world view. Yet the Bible
claims to be reporting events that actually took place. It
asserts more than that its principles are true. It insists upon
its own world view; any who disagree with it are considered to be
in rebellion. In its exclusion of all counterclaims, it becomes
irreconcilable with the antisupernaturalism presupposed by modern
man.
Some people suggest that there are great differences between
contemporary scientific language and the "highly symbolic"
language of the Bible. It is inescapable, however, that the
world view of Western culture has changed quite drastically since
the late nineteenth century. Prior to that time, the Bible was
accepted as normative in all of its statements, whether they were
"religious" principles or propositions about the material world.
Prior to the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859,
almost all scientists believed, for example, that all people were
descended from Adam and Eve, and that physical death and
suffering were a result of the fall of man.
Before the recent shift in world view, science and the Bible
were in agreement. This is evident in the works of Cotton
Mather, Sir Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and
the general scientific literature of the early nineteenth
century. In fact, it was the Christian faith that spawned the
development of science, which assumed that there is a God who
orders the universe, and that this order can be studied in a
systematic fashion. However, until the time of Hume, it was
usually assumed by all but the Deists that God could and
sometimes would suspend this order when He so chose.
There has been a tendency in modern historiography to treat
the prevalence of works in early nineteenth century America
assuming the harmony of Christianity and Science as an innovative
approach spawned by Francis Bacon. This view is based upon the
false assumption that scientific truth and religious truth are
two different genres of truth, and ignores the writings of late
Puritanism in America which also assume basic agreement between
science and Christianity.
The attempt to differentiate between religious and
scientific truth is incommensurate with the Biblical approach.
The Bible treats its propositional statements as more than mere
examples from which to learn life principles. One cannot examine
the Biblical documents without being continually reminded that
the Biblical writers not only believed that the events described
in the Scriptures actually took place, but also that all other
opinions must be subordinated to the Biblical world view.
Many theologians suggest that whatever truth may be found in
the Bible is relative to the world view of the culture in which
it was written. According to this view, the Bible was written
with the assumption that the world is flat and that the earth is
stationary while the sun travels above it from east to west.
They suggest that while the Bible reflects the understanding
prevalent at certain points of time in ancient history, the Bible
is still the word of God in that the principles about which the
authors were writing are no less valid. In such statements there
is often an antisupernaturalistic undercurrent of thought, and
implicit in some of such statements is the idea that while the
Bible is expressed in categories that allow for miracles to
occur, we now know such things to be mere superstition.
It is important to recognize that such thinking often either
stems from a strong presuppositional bias against the miraculous,
or makes too many concessions to such a bias. There is no
conclusive evidence that the Bible presupposes either a flat
earth, or an earth that is stationary relative to the sun, or,
for that matter, a three-storied universe, as has been maintained
by some people.
Also, our own understanding of the universe is undoubtedly
just as culture bound as that of our predecessors. Is it not
likely that people living one thousand years hence would find our
own world view as strange as we find that of earlier ancient
cultures? What if our own criticisms of the Biblical world view
were to become as ridiculous to later generations as we now think
the ideas of the ancients to be? It would be rather haughty of
us to think that we have the last word in our understanding of
the universe.
The idea that the Biblical documents reflect an outmoded
world view is, of course, irreconcilable with the Bible's
treatment of itself. It treats itself, not only as a special
reservoir of principles by which we may conduct our lives, but,
far more than that, it insists upon subordinating to itself all
other theories of truth. Moreover, the Biblical writings span
about as great a period of time as has passed since its most
recent portions have been written, yet there is no indication
that the book of Revelation disdains the world view of the book
of Genesis. On the contrary, this last book of the Bible assumes
the divine authority of all of the other books of the Judaeo-
Christian canon, and this is especially evident in its allusions
to the book of Genesis.
If we reject the claims of the Bible for itself, then we are
beset with an imposing set of difficulties arising from the
interpenetration of Biblical history with secular history, both
in the past and in the present. History does not take place in a
vacuum. The Bible claims that its accounts are not legend. If
this claim is rejected, then one must find some way of explaining
the existence of a body of literature which, although falsified,
corresponds, down to its minutest details, to all that is known
about the history with which it claims to be contemporaneous, and
which, if it had not taken place, leaves unexplained the myriad
of effects that have ostensibly occurred as a result of the
events that it describes.
THE HISTORICAL TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE BIBLE
The trustworthiness of the Bible's historical statements has
been corroborated again and again both through archaeological
discoveries and through close correlation of the Bible's content
with other independent ancient sources. A comprehensive study of
this topic would be far beyond the scope of these lectures, but
for the purpose of illustration, it will be possible to examine
briefly the accuracy of Luke as a historian.
Luke, the friend and companion of Paul, is the author of the
third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, which may be two parts
of one continuous historical work.1 Luke mentions three emperors
by name: Augustus (Luke 2:1), Tiberius (Luke 3:1), and Claudius
(Acts 18:2 and Acts 11:28). The birth of Jesus is fixed in the
reign of the emperor Augustus, when Herod the Great was king of
Judaea, and Quirinius governor of Syria (Luke 1:5, 2:2). Luke
dates by a series of synchronisms in the Greek historical manner
the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry (Luke 3:12), just as
the Greek historian Thucydides dates the formal outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War in his History, book II.2 Luke accurately
names the Roman governors Quirinius, Pilate, Sergius, Paullus,
Gallio, Felix, and Festus, Herod the Great and a few of his
descendants, including Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee, the
vassal-kings Herod Agrippa I and II, Berenice and Drusilla,
Jewish priests such as Annas, Caiaphas, and Ananias, and
Gamaliel, the great Rabbi and Pharisaic leader. An author
relating his story to the wider context of world history must be
careful, because he affords the reader abundant opportunities to
test the degree of his accuracy. Not only does Luke take this
risk, but he stands the test admirably. F. F. Bruce writes:
One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his
sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable
persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no
means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when
it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.
The accuracy of Luke's use of the various titles in the
Roman Empire has been compared to the easy and confident way
in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer
to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper titles--the
Provost of Oriel, the Master of Balliol, the Rector of
Exeter, the President of Magdalen, and so on. A non-Oxonian
like the present writer never feels quite at home with the
multiplicity of these Oxford titles. But Luke had a further
difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the
same for any great length of time; a province might pass
from senatorial government to administration by a direct
representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no
longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate (legatus pro
proetore).3
F. F. Bruce gives multitudes of specific examples of the
incredible accuracy of Luke as a historian.4
Among the many supposed mistakes of Luke that have since
been vindicated was the mention in Luke 3:1 of Lysanias the
tetrarch of Abilene in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (A.D. 27-
28). The only Lysanias of Abilene otherwise known from ancient
history was a king who was executed by the order of Mark Antony
in 34 B.C. We now have archaeological evidence of a later
Lysanias who had the status of tetrarch. An inscription
recording the dedication of a temple reads, "For the salvation of
the Lords Imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a
freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch." The reference to "Lords
Imperial," which was a joint title given only to the emperor
Tiberius and his mother Livia, the widow of Augustus, establishes
the date of the inscription to between A.D. 14 and 29, the years
of Tiberius' accession and Livia's death, respectively.5
In the book of Acts, chapters 27 and 28, Luke records a sea
voyage from Palestine on which he was shipwrecked en route to
Italy with Paul and his companions. H. J. Holtzmann describes
this as "one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge
of ancient seamanship."6 James Smith of Jordanhill, an
experienced yachtsman who was quite familiar with the part of the
Mediterranean Sea on which Paul sailed, bears witness to the
remarkable accuracy of Luke's account of each part of the voyage.
He writes:
I do not even assume the authenticity of the narrative
of the voyage and shipwreck contained in the Acts of
the Apostles, but scrutinise St. Luke's account of the
voyage precisely as I would those of Baffin or
Middleton, or of any antient [sic] voyage of doubtful
authority, or involving points on which controversies
have been raised. A searching comparison of the
narrative, with the localities where the events so
circumstantially related are said to have taken place,
with the aids which recent advances in our knowledge of
the geography and the navigation of the eastern part of
the Mediterranean supply, accounts for every
transaction--clears up every difficulty--and exhibits
an agreement so perfect in all its parts as to admit
but of one explanation, namely, that it is a narrative
of real events, written by one personality engaged in
them, and that the tradition respecting the locality is
true.7
Concerning the accuracy of Luke as a historian, F. F. Bruce
writes:
Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental. A
man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we
are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the
means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a
habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy)
experience that some people are habitually accurate just as
others can be depended upon to be inaccurate. Luke's record
entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual
accuracy.8
Sir William Ramsay writes:
The present writer takes the view that Luke's history
is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. At
this point we are describing what reasons and arguments
changed the mind of one who began under the impression
that the history was written long after the events and
that it was untrustworthy as a whole.9
Concerning Luke's accuracy as a historian, Henry J. Cadbury,
a professor from Harvard University, writes:
The historical worth of the Acts of the Apostles is not
to be expressed merely in such negative terms. In
itself it often carries its own evidences of accuracy,
of intelligent grasp of its theme, of fullness of
information. Its stories are not thin and colorless
but packed with variety and substance. There is reason
for the modern scholar to ponder them carefully, to
examine them in detail and to compare them point for
point throughout the volume. . . . The data which
throw light on the history in Acts are also the data
which confirm its place in history. But there is a
difference in the approach. To a large extent the
material with which I shall deal is capable of an
apologetic use. It can be cited to show that the
author of Acts is dealing with facts and reality.10
_______________________________________
1F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable?, fifth ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press,
1960), p. 80.
2See The Complete Writings of Thucydides, trans. Joseph
Gavorse (New York: Random House, 1934), Book II, Chapter VI, p.
84.
3Bruce, p. 82.
4Ibid., pp. 82-92.
5Eduard Meyer, Ursprung Und Anfange Des Christentums
(Stuttgart: J. G. Cottaishe, 1962), pp. 46-49.
6H. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament
(Freiburg: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung Von J. C. B. Mohr,
1889), pp. 420-426.
7James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London:
Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1848), pp. v-vi.
8Bruce, p. 90. See Also Sir William M. Ramsay, The Bearing
of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), p. 80.
9Sir William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on
the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1915), p. 81.
10Henry J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1955), pp. 3, 4.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE
The subject of Biblical archaeology is a vast one, so it
will be necessary to confine comments here to only a few of the
multitude of cases in which archaeological discoveries have
vindicated Biblical claims.
At many times in the past, scholars have assumed the Bible
to be inaccurate until new archaeological evidence necessitated a
reversal of scepticism on the point in question. For example,
for many years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica referred to the
Hittites as "a mythological civilization mentioned only in the
Bible." Then, suddenly, a great deal of archaeological evidence
was found in modern Turkey for the existence of the Hittites.
The next edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica then carried a
great deal of material describing the Hittite civilization in
considerable detail.1
Similar reversals have taken place among scholars with
respect to the Horites, the historicity of Sargon II (722-705
B.C.), the existence of Belshazzar, the use of alphabetic writing
in Canaanite cultures before 1500 B.C., and many other matters.2
By 1960, in a book endorsed by an editorial board consisting
of American Liberal Clergymen, John Elder had written:
It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the
science of archaeology that broke the deadlock between
historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little,
one city after another, one civilization after another, one
culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in
the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient
history by the studies of archaeologists. . . .
Contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed
and the uniqueness of Biblical revelation has been
emphasized by contrast and comparison to newly discovered
religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archaeological
discovery refuted the Bible as history.3
There have been many scholars, such as Sir William Ramsay,
who have become Christian believers as a result of confronting
the archaeological evidence for the validity of the Biblical
claims over a lifetime of study.
Some of the most startling archaeological finds bear upon
the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, a
portion of the Bible that even some Bible-believing scholars have
had difficulty accepting at face value. Among these is the
Temptation Seal, found among ancient Babylonian tablets, and
presently in the British Museum, depicting the Garden of Eden
story. In its center is a tree, with a man on the right, and a
woman on the left plucking fruit. Behind the woman is a serpent,
standing erect, as if whispering to her.4
The "Adam and Eve" seal depicts a naked man and a naked
woman walking as if utterly downcast and brokenhearted, followed
by a serpent. Presently in the University of Pennsylvania Museum
in Philadelphia, this seal was found in 1932 by Dr. E. A. Speiser
near the bottom of the Tepe Gawra Mound, 12 miles north of
Nineveh. He dated the seal at about 3500 B. C. and called it
"strongly suggestive of the Adam and Eve story."5
A stele (or monument) discovered at the site of Ur in
ancient Babylon depicts the various activities of Ur-Nammu, who
was king of Ur from 2044 to 2007 B.C. According to the stele, he
began construction of a great tower. According to a clay tablet
unearthed at the same site by George Smith of the British Museum,
the erection of the tower offended the Gods, who "threw down what
they had built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange
their speech."6 This is very similar to the account of the tower
of Babel found in Genesis 11:1-9.
Other archaeologists, including E. A. Speiser and S. N.
Kramer of the University of Pennsylvania, and Oxford cuneiformist
Oliver Gurney, have found evidence that the ancient Sumerians
believed that there was a time when all mankind spoke the same
language and that at a particular time, the God of Wisdom
confounded their speech.7
One of the many archaeological scholars who began his
studies convinced that the Bible was legendary, but later became
very conservative in his approach to the Biblical narratives was
William F. Albright. This change of viewpoint was the result of
many years of archaeological discoveries disconfirming the
hypothesis that the Bible was legend. For example, Genesis 14:
5,6 refers to a number of cities by way of which the four Eastern
kings came against Sodom. These cities were so far east of the
ordinary trade route that Albright once considered it evidence of
the legendary character of Genesis 14. However, in 1929, he
discovered in Hauran and along the eastern border of Gilead and
Moab, a series of tells of cities that flourished about 2000
B.C., demonstrating that it was a well-settled area, and a trade
route between Damascus and Edom and Sinai.8
The Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah has been corroborated by surface surveys undertaken on
the east side of the Dead Sea, which have revealed a series of
five ancient cities dating back to the Middle Bronze era. There
is strong evidence that various layers of the earth were
disrupted and hurled high into the air. Because much of this
material was bituminous pitch, these five cities were covered
with it. The layers of sedimentary rock at these sites were
molded together by intense heat, as is evident on the top of
nearby Jebel Usdum (Mount Sodom). Geologists have hypothesized
that an oil basin beneath the Dead Sea ignited and erupted,
causing a rain of fire and debris upon these cities.9
_______________________________________
1Francis A. Schaeffer, Tape, "Five Problems With Those Who
Deny the Claims of the Bible Concerning Itself" (Huemoz,
Switzerland: L'Abri Tapes, n.d.)
2Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), p. 165.
3John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers (New York: Bobbs
Merrill, 1960), p. 16, as quoted by Archer, p. 166.
4Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, 24th ed. (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 68.
5Ibid., pp. 68-69.
6Quoted by Ibid., p. 84 and Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks,
Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1977), p. 29.
7Wilson, pp. 29-31.
8Halley, p. 97.
9Wilson, pp. 41-42.
CONFIRMATIONS OF THE BIBLE IN THE CLASSICS
AND IN OTHER INDEPENDENT ANCIENT SOURCES
Heretics, Jews, pagans, and Christians all inadvertently
confirm the trustworthiness of the Bible by their incidental
references to many of the same things to which the Bible refers.
One of the most exhaustive studies of this topic was done by
Thomas S. Millington, in his book, The Testimony of the Heathen
to the Truths of Holy Writ (London, 1863). Subtitled A
Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Compiled Almost
Exclusively from Greek and Latin Authors of the Classical Ages of
Antiquity, this book systematically covers the entire Bible,
chapter by chapter, citing all references from ancient writers
that support the statements of the Bible.
Another approach that is sometimes taken is to compile all
of the references to the New Testament by the earliest
extrabiblical sources to demonstrate that it was already in
widespread circulation in ancient antiquity. Almost the entire
New Testament can be reconstructed from these writings,
especially since the early Apostolic Fathers quoted extensively
from the New Testament within a few decades of the time it was
written.1
Even the earliest enemies of the Christian faith provide
abundant evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament by
their constant references to it. Moreover, the early opponent of
Christianity, Celsus, wrote of the companions of Jesus that they
lived just a few years before his time. He also acknowledged the
miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, but ascribed them to "the magic
art" which, according to him, Christ learned in Egypt.
Another early enemy of Christianity, Lucian, in his account
of the death of the philosopher Peregrinus, bears authentic
testimony to the major facts and principles of Christianity. In
a work entitled Alexander or Pseudomantis, he talks of those who
are well known in the world by the name of Christians, and that
they are formidable to cheats and impostors.
Even Pontius Pilate sent an account to the emperor Tiberius
of Christ's life, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and
ascension. References to these Acta Pilati (Acts of Pilate) can
be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus,
Clement, and Eusebius.
One must exercise caution in accepting the claims on non-
Christian historians about classical references to the Christian
faith. For example, Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, vol. II, states that there was a silence of all writers,
except the evangelists, on the darkness over the land at Christ's
crucifixion, and that Pliny, who devoted a whole chapter to the
enumeration of eclipses and strange things, does not mention it,
and would surely have done so if it had been true. However,
Pliny's "chapter" is only eighteen words in length: "eclipses are
sometimes very long, like that after Caesar's death, when the sun
was pale almost a year." Pliny does not mention the darkness,
but Celsus does, as do Thallus, Phlegon, Origen, Eusebius,
Tertullian, and others, some of them Christians and some
opponents of Christ. David Nelson commented, "I am sorry you
took the word of that author [Gibbon], splendid as were his
talents; for he sometimes penned falsehood without scruple, if
religion was his topic."2
Some of the early opponents of Christianity were converted
to Christ. For example, Aristides was a Greek philosopher at
Athens who renounced heathenism and wrote a letter to the emperor
describing those who had been healed and restored by the apostles
in his day.
There are many allusions of first and second century Roman
historians to Christianity. For example, Suetonius wrote, "owing
to the tumults which the Jews stirred up at Rome, at the
instigation of one Chrestus, Claudius decreed their expulsion
from the city."3 In his Life of Nero (xxvi. 2), he wrote,
"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men
addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition."
In an account of the great fire at Rome in A.D. 64, the
great Roman historian Tacitus wrote as follows about the rumor
that Nero was responsible for its instigation:
Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as
culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of
cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the
crowd styled Christians. Christus, from whom they got their
name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator
Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor; and the pernicious
superstition was checked for a short time, only to break out
afresh, not only in Judaea, the home of the plague, but in
Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in
the world collect and find a home.4
Elsewhere, Tacitus describes persecution at Rome during
which the apostle Paul was put to death, and he called those who
were burned "ingens multitudo," a vast crowd.
There are, of course, countless allusions to various
historical circumstances common both to the Bible and to other
contemporary writings. An overview of some such references
appears in a 60-page article by G. F. MacLear, "Historical
Illustrations of the New Testament Scriptures," volume VII of the
Religious Tract Society's Present Day Tracts (London, 1886). One
of the most obvious illustrations is the account by the Jewish
historian Josephus (Antiquities xix. 8, 2) of the sudden death of
Herod Agrippa I, which corresponds closely with the account of
the same event in Acts 12: 19-23. MacLear concludes his survey
as follows:
[The Gospel] Story is in its outline attested by
Classical authors of repute, and this attestation
remains certain and indisputable, even supposing the
New Testament had never been written at all. We must
destroy the Annals of Tacitus, the Lives of Suetonius,
the Letters of Pliny, if we wish to get rid of their
testimony that in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius one
called Christ existed; that Judaea was the place of His
teaching; that He was put to death at the command of
Pontius Pilate; that in spite of His death, His
doctrines rapidly spread throughout the Roman world;
that they attracted a vast number of converts; that, in
consequence, the ancient sacrificial system gradually
disappeared; that the Christians worshipped Christ as a
God; and for His sake suffered cruel persecution. . . .
Is it possible to believe that the narrative of His
Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, and of the
foundation of His Church, which at this moment notoriously
exists, could have been described by the writers of the new
Testament with a wealth of incidental allusions to the most
complicated political and historical facts, attested in many
of the minutest particulars alike by classical historians,
and by monumental and numismatic inscriptions, and at the
same time be untrue? Is this conceivable?5
_______________________________________
1Committee of the Oxford Historical Society of Historical
Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1905) provides a systematic study of this
subject.
2David Nelson, The Cause and Cure of Infidelity (New York:
American Tract Society, 1841), p. 79.
3Suetonius, Life of Claudius xxv. 4.
4Tacitus, Annals xv. 44.
5MacLear, pp. 59-60.
THE VERIFIABILITY OF HISTORY:
EVERY EVENT HAS COLLATERAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONSEQUENCES
In a previous chapter, "Why The Bible Cannot Be Legend," it
was shown that because everything that happens has both
consequences and a definite context, it is possible to determine
whether or not a given historical account is trustworthy. This
is especially clear in the historical accounts of the life of
Christ in the New Testament. Consider the following observations
by the Roman Catholic Scholar, Daniel-Rops:
The life of Christ is set definitely in historical time, not
in some remote legendary period as are the traditions
concerning Orpheus, Osiris or Mithra. The Roman Empire of
the first century is known to us in remarkable detail.
Great men like Livy or Seneca, whose work has come down to
us, were writing when Jesus was alive. Virgil, had he not
died at the early age of fifty-one, might have been living
in his childhood; Plutarch and Tacitus were of the
generation that followed him. Furthermore, very many of the
personages who appear in the narratives concerning Jesus
appear also in other historical documents--for example,
those whom St. Luke mentions in the third chapter of his
Gospel, Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, the priests
Annas and Caiphas, and John the Baptist, whose life and
apostolate are recounted by Josephus.
And that is not all: the ideas and the behavior, the
whole setting which precisely dates a human existence, are,
for those who take the trouble to compare, exactly those
depicted for us by contemporary Palestinian sources.
The man therefore is fixed in a social and political
milieu which has been exhaustively studied. No mythical
existence could be related so precisely to its setting.1
In the opening sections of his book, Daniel-Rops relentlessly
forces the reader to come to grips with the inescapable reality
of Jesus Christ, and he does so by confronting us with the fabric
of history into which Jesus is interwoven, and by demonstrating
to us that what presently exists could not possibly exist apart
from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The
miracles of the life of Christ "cannot be detached from the stuff
of his existence, except by rending the whole fabric, denying
this existence, casting doubt on all those who have testified to
him."2
The life of Christ made an indelible imprint on all of
humanity, yet that this should have happened at all is in itself
a miracle. "That this man of poor and uncultivated stock should
remake the basis of philosophy and open out to the world of the
future an unknown territory of thought; that this simple son of a
declining people, born in an obscure district in a small Roman
province, this nameless Jew like all those others despised by the
Procurators of Caesar, should speak with a voice that was to
sound above those of the Emperors themselves, these are the most
surprising facts of history."3 In our own day and age we live
with these consequences of the life of Christ. Whether we like
it or not, he made an indelible mark upon all of humanity. If we
deny his existence, not only do we do violence to the fabric of
history, but we deny what is presently the case.
_______________________________________
1Daniel-Rops, Jesus and His Times (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.,
Inc., 1956), p. 11.
2Ibid., p. 10.
3Ibid.
THE LONG DAY OF JOSHUA
One of the evidences for the historicity of the long day
recorded in Joshua 10:13 and reiterated in Habakkuk 3:11 lies in
the large body of traditions from many parts of the world
according to which there was a long day (or night, or evening,
depending upon the location) at about the same time that Joshua
lived. David Nelson dramatically informs us of this fact as
follows:
Chinese history speaks of Yao, their king, declaring
that in his reign the sun stood so long above the
horizon that it was feared the world would have been
set on fire; and fixes the reign of Yao at a given
date, which corresponds with the age of Joshua the son
of Nun. . . .
The Latin poet Ovid amuses the school-boy greatly, in
his fanciful narrative of Phaeton's chariot. This heathen
author tells us, that a day was once lost, and that the
earth was in great danger from the intense heat of an
unusual sun. . . . Our notice is somewhat attracted, when
we find him mention Phaeton--who was a Canaanitish prince--
and learn that the fable originated with the Phoenicians,
the same people whom Joshua fought. If you ask an
unbeliever of these incidents, or of the common traditions
with early nations that a day was lost about the time when
the volume of truth informs us that the sun hasted not to go
down for the space of a whole day, you will find that he had
never thought on these points: they are not of the character
which he is inclined to notice.1
T. W. Doane relates the following facts concerning these
traditions:
There are many stories similar to this, to be found
among other nations of antiquity. We have, as an
example, that which is related of Bacchus in the Orphic
hymns, wherein it says that this god-man arrested the
course of the sun and the moon. An Indian legend
relates that the sun stood still to hear the pious
ejaculations of Arjouan after the death of Crishna. A
holy Buddhist by the name of Matanga prevented the sun,
at his command, from rising, and bisected the
moon. . . . The Chinese also, had a legend of the sun
standing still, and a legend was found among the
Ancient Mexicans to the effect that one of their holy
persons commanded the sun to stand still, which command
was obeyed.2
Doane refers to Anacalypsis by Higgins, Buddhist Legends by Hardy
and Bud. & Jeyens by Franklin in support of his statements.
In 1940, Harry Rimmer summarized these traditions as
follows:
In the ancient Chinese writings there is a legend of a long
day. The Incas of Peru and the Aztecs of Mexico have a like
record, and there is a Babylonian and a Persian legend of a
day that was miraculously extended. Another section of
China contributes an account of the day that was
miraculously prolonged, in the reign of Emperor Yeo.
Herodotus recounts that the priests of Egypt showed him
their temple records, and that there he read a strange
account of a day that was twice the natural length.
Rimmer concludes this section with a lengthy quotation from the
Polynesian account of this event.
In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky came out with his controversial
book, Worlds in Collision, based on the premise that the account
of the long day in Joshua is accurate, accounting for many other
unsolved scientific mysteries. In support of his premise, he
also refers to the ancient traditions of a long day:
In the Mexican Annals of Cuauhtitlan--the history of the
empire of Culhuacan and Mexico, written in Nahua-Indian in
the sixteenth century--it is related that during a cosmic
catastrophe that occurred in the remote past, the night did
not end for a long time. . . .
Sahagun, the Spanish savant who came to America a
generation after Columbus and gathered the traditions of the
aborigines, wrote that at the time of one cosmic catastrophe
the sun rose only a little way over the horizon and remained
there without moving; the moon also stood still.4
In a footnote, Velikovsky states that the Mexican Annals of
Cuauhtitlan, were also known as the Codex Chimalpopca, and that
these manuscripts contained a series of annals of very ancient
date, many of them going back to more than a thousand years
before the Christian era.
Velikovsky's theory was that at some time in the middle of
the second millennium B.C., either the earth was interrupted in
its regular rotation by a comet, or the terrestrial axis was
tilted in the presence of a strong magnetic field, so that for
several hours the sun appeared to lose its diurnal movement.
Velikovsky's book brought about quite a bit of discussion on
this topic. "The Day The Sun Stood Still," by Eric Larabee was
published in Harper's in January of 1950. It was reprinted in
the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune on February 5 of that year, with
the comment that "The article on this page--`The Day the Sun
Stood Still'--will quite probably become the most discussed
magazine piece of 1950. It was published in the current issue of
Harper's Magazine, and the Tribune is the first newspaper to
reprint it. The account is based on a book, Worlds in Collision,
by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. The article has created such
interest in publishing circles that, the Tribune has learned, the
editors of Collier's and of The Reader's Digest have other
presentations of the same idea in preparation. This Week
magazine, which is a section of the Sunday Tribune and twenty-
five other Sunday newspapers, is preparing a pictorial
presentation of some of Velikovsky's unusual theories which lace
together elements of religious beliefs and scientific events and
try to explain that once--within the recorded history of man--the
sun stood still."5
Gordon A. Atwater, curator of the Hayden Planetarium, wrote
at the time, "The theories presented by Dr. Velikovsky are unique
and should be presented to the world of science in order that the
underpinning of modern science can be re-examined . . . I believe
the author has done an outstanding job."6
Another indication of the trustworthiness of Joshua 10:13
can be found in astronomical data. It appears that one full day
is missing in our astronomical calculations. On different
occasions, Sir Edwin Ball, the great British astronomer, and
Professors Pickering of the Harvard Observatory, Maunders of
Greenwich, and Totten of Yale have traced this back to the time
of Joshua. If we disregard calendar changes and deal only with a
chronology based upon solar motion, and go back to the earliest
available records, and trace the calendar through to the time of
Joshua, the day of Joshua's battle was on a Tuesday, whereas if
we compute backwards to the time of Joshua from the present day,
the day of the battle would have been on a Wednesday. The day of
the month is the same, but it is a different day of the week.
In other words, if we reckon from the first recorded
solstice in the ancient Egyptian records, the day is Tuesday, but
if we reckon back from the most recent solstice, the day is
Wednesday. These facts are extensively corroborated with
astronomical data by Charles A. L. Totten in Joshua's Long Day,
and the Dial of Ahaz (New Haven: Our Race Publishing Co., 1890).
These facts came to widespread public attention in the late
1960's, after Mary Kathryn Bryan published an article in the
Evening Star of Spencer, Indiana, about Harold Hill, President of
the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland, a consultant to
NASA at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
According to the article, computer calculations bearing upon the
positions of the sun, moon and planets were not coming out
properly. These calculations were necessary, and had to be
exact, in order to lay out the orbits of satellites and manned
space flights. However, once the long day of Joshua and the
retreat of the sun backward ten degrees in II Kings 20:9-11 were
taken into account, all of the calculations worked out perfectly.
This article was widely quoted, and copies of it appeared in
many places for several years. Harold Hill later published his
own account of these events in the thirteenth chapter of How To
Live Like A King's Kid, which was substantially the same as that
in Kathryn Bryan's article. In his account, he wrote:
Later, someone sent me a clipping . . . saying I had
admitted the whole thing was a hoax. Shortly
thereafter, numerous religious magazines, some of them
Christian, began repeating the false "retraction" and
apologizing for their original participation in the
rerun of the article. Not one of them ever checked
with me as to the truth or error of the article as
originally published.
For the record--the report is true, the retraction
false. . . . The whole sequence of events has
demonstrated to me how prone even Christians are to
believe a lie instead of the truth.7
In an appendix to this chapter, Hill published a review of
Totten's book written by V. L. Westberg, who stated:
While Mr. Totten suggests an intervening comet perhaps
caused the slow day by cutting off actinic rays, I feel
a more realistic theory is to examine the possibility
of a huge meteor or asteroid plunging into the earth's
mantle slowing it down about one revolution while the
inner molten core continued to rotate and eventually
pull the mantle back in speed. Mr. Totten recounted
how Newton demonstrated how the earth could be suddenly
slowed down without appreciable shock to people.
I have examined several maps of the Pacific Ocean
which lend support to this theory. The October 1969
map in National Geographic Magazine shows a large sink
area between Hawaii and the Philippines with long
fracture lines in the ocean bottom radiating outward to
the continents. The effect of such a crash would be
maximum there at the equator on slowing the earth and
would result in huge tidal waves which might help
explain Dr. Northrup's studies on California's sand
deposits. The size of the asteroid needed to slow down
the earth one revolution could be calculated if mantle
thickness were known and it could have been as large as
Ceres--480 miles diameter.8
_______________________________________
1David Nelson, The Cause and Cure of Infidelity (New York:
American Tract Society, 1841), pp. 26-27.
2T. W. Doane, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions,
fourth ed. (New York: Charles P. Somerby, 1882), p. 91.
3Harry Rimmer, The Harmony of Science and Scripture (William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940), pp. 269-270.
4Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45, 46.
5Quoted by O. E. Sanden, Does Science Support the Scriptures?
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1951), p. 9.
6Ibid., p. 10.
7Harold Hill, How To Live Like A King's Kid (Plainfield, NJ:
Logos International), p. 71.
8Ibid., p. 76.
JONAH
Many people feel that the account given in the Bible of
Jonah is legendary, since even if there were a fish big enough to
swallow a man, certainly no man would be able to survive three
days in its digestive tract and then escape to the outside world.
However, again and again, Jesus referred to this as a historical
event, and even pointed to it as a foreshadowing of his own death
and resurrection.
There are, however, several documented accounts of people
who have been swallowed by whales and large fish, and have lived
to tell about it, even after several days. One species of fish,
the "Sea Dog" (Carcharodon carcharias), is found in all warm
seas, and can reach a length of 40 feet. In the year 1758, a
sailor fell overboard from a boat in the Mediterranean and was
swallowed by a sea dog. The captain of the vessel ordered a
cannon on the deck to be fired at the fish, which vomited up the
sailor alive and unharmed after it was struck.1
Sperm whales can swallow lumps of food eight feet in
diameter. Entire skeletons of sharks up to sixteen feet in
length have been found in them. In February of 1891, James
Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was
swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He
was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours, and after
he was found inside the whale, which had been harpooned and
brought aboard the whaling ship, it took him two weeks to recover
from the ordeal. Sir Francis Fox wrote as follows about this:
Bartley affirms that he would probably have lived inside his
house of flesh until he starved, for he lost his senses
through fright and not from lack of air. He remembers the
sensation of being thrown out of the boat into the
sea. . . . He was then encompassed by a great darkness and
he felt he was slipping along a smooth passage of some sort
that seemed to move and carry him forward. The sensation
lasted but a short time and then he realized he had more
room. He felt about him and his hands came in contact with
a yielding slimy substance that seemed to shrink from his
touch. It finally dawned upon him that he had been
swallowed by the whale . . . he could easily breathe; but
the heat was terrible. It was not of a scorching, stifling
nature, but it seemed to open the pores of his skin and draw
out his vitality. . . . His skin where it was exposed to
the action of the gastric juice . . . face, neck and hands
were bleached to a deadly whiteness and took on the
appearance of parchment . . . (and) never recovered its
natural appearance . . . (though otherwise) his health did
not seem affected by his terrible experience.2
Another individual, Marshall Jenkins, was swallowed by a
Sperm Whale in the South Seas. The Boston Post Boy, October 14,
1771, reported that an Edgartown (U.S.A.) whaling vessel struck a
whale, and that after the whale had bitten one of the boats in
two, it took Jenkins in its mouth and went under the water with
him. After returning to the surface, the whale vomited him on to
the wreckage of the broken boat, "much bruised but not seriously
injured."3
There is, of course, a great deal of historical and
archaeological evidence for the ministry of Jonah in Nineveh.
Prominent among the divinities of ancient Assyria was Dagan, a
creature part man and part fish. This was sometimes represented
as an upright figure, with the head of a fish above the head of a
man, the open mouth of the fish forming a miter as the man's
sacred head-dress, and the feet of a man extending below the tail
of the fish. In other cases, the body of a man was at right
angles to the conjoined body of a fish. Images of this fish-god
were found guarding the entrance to the palace and temple in the
ruins of Nineveh, and they appear on ancient Babylonian seals, in
a variety of forms.
Berosus, a Babylonian historian, writing in the fourth
century B.C., recorded the early traditions concerning the origin
of the worship of this fish-man. According to the earliest
tradition, the very beginning of civilization in Chaldea and
Babylonia was under the direction of a person, part man and part
fish, who came up out of the sea. During Jonah's time, the
people of Nineveh believed in a divinity who sent messages to
them by a person who rose out of the sea, as part fish and part
man, and they would undoubtedly have been very receptive to
Jonah's ministry if he had been vomited out of a fish. H. Clay
Trumbull wrote of this as follows:
What better heralding, as a divinely sent messenger to
Nineveh, could Jonah have had, than to be thrown up out
of the mouth of a great fish, in the presence of
witnesses, say, on the coast of Phoenicia, where the
fish-god was a favorite object of worship?
. . . The recorded sudden and profound alarm of
the people of an entire city at his warning was most
natural, as a result of the coincidence of this miracle
with their religious beliefs and expectations.4
Berosis gives the name of the Assyrian fish-god as "Oannes,"
while he mentions the name "Odacon" as that of one of the avatars
of Oannes. Since the name Dagan appears frequently in the
Assyrian records from earlier dates, and no trace has been found
in them of the name "Oannes," it is possible that this name is a
reference to Jonah, as the supposed manifestation of the fish-god
himself. The name Oannes for Jonah appears in the Septuagint and
in the New Testament with the addition of I before it (Ioannes).
However, according to Dr. Herman V. Hilprecht, the eminent
Assyriologist, in the Assyrian inscriptions the J of foreign
words becomes I, or disappears altogether. Hence Joannes, as the
Greek representation of Jonah would appear in Assyrian either as
Ioannes or as Oannes. Therefore, in his opinion, Oannes would be
a regular Greco-Babylonian writing for Jonah.5
The preservation of the name "Yunas" or "Jonah" at the ruins
of Nineveh also confirms the historicity of the Jonah story. As
soon as modern discoverers unearthed the mound that had been
known for centuries by the name of "Neby Yunas," they found
beneath it the ruined palaces of the kings of Nineveh.6
_______________________________________
1Ambrose John Wilson, "The Sign of the Prophet Jonah and Its
Modern Confirmations," The Princeton Theological Review 25
(1927): 638. footnote 20.
2Quoted in Ibid., p. 636.
3Ibid., pp. 636-637.
4H. Clay Trumbull, "Jonah In Nineveh," Journal of Biblical
Literature 11 (1892): 10-12.
5Ibid., p. 14.
6Ibid., pp. 17, 18.
THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY
The fulfillment of the prophecies of the Bible is a vast
subject. In fact, the Messianic prophecies alone have provided
enough material for the publication of many books. Other books
have been written solely about the Old Testament prophecies
concerning certain cities or about certain world empires, while
still others consider the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies in
the twentieth century.
Some authors have identified more than 300 Old Testament
passages that are cited by the New Testament as having been
fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The question of the New Testament's
treatment of the Old Testament will be treated in a later
section, but it is certainly clear that Jesus fulfilled a great
many of the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. The
study of the libretto for Handel's Messiah is very instructive in
this regard, because although the story line portrays the life of
Jesus, many of the passages used for this purpose are taken from
Old Testament prophetic passages concerning the Messiah.
Some of the fulfillments of the Messianic prophecies in
Jesus were as follows: He was to be the seed of the woman (Gen.
3:15) who was to bruise Satan's head (Gal. 4:4). As the seed of
Abraham (Gen. 22:18, Gal. 3:16) and the seed of David (Psalm
132:11, Jer. 23:5, Acts 13:23), he was to come from the tribe of
Judah (Gen. 49:10, Heb. 7:14).
He was to come a specified time (Gen. 49:10, Dan. 9:24-25,
Luke 2:1), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14, Matt. 1:18-23), in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:5,6). Great persons were
to visit Him and adore Him (Psalm 72:10, Matt. 2:1-11), and
through the rage of a jealous king, innocent children were to be
slaughtered (Jer. 31:15, Matt. 2:16-18). He was to be preceded
by a forerunner, John the Baptist, before entering His public
ministry (Isaiah 40:3, Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, Matt. 3:13).
He was to be a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18, Acts 3:20-
22), and to have a special anointing of the Holy Spirit (Psalm
45:7, Isaiah 11:2, Isaiah 61:1,2, Matt. 3:16, Luke 4:15-21,43).
He was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm
110:4, Heb. 5:5,6). As the servant of the Lord, he was to be a
faithful and patient redeemer for the Gentiles as well as for the
Jews (Isaiah 42:1-4, Matt. 12:18-21).
His ministry was to begin in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1,2, Matt. 4:
12,16-23); He was later to enter Jerusalem (Zech. 9:9, Matt. 21:
1-5) to bring salvation. He was to enter the temple (Hag. 2:7-9,
Mal. 3:1, Matt. 21:12). His zeal for the Lord is mentioned
(Psalm 69:9, John 2:17); His manner of teaching was to be by
parables (Psalm 78:2, Matt. 13:34-35); His ministry was to be
characterized by miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6, Matt. 11:4-6, John
11:47). He was to be rejected by His brethren (Psalm 69:8,
Isaiah 53:3, John 1:11, John 7:5), and a "stone of stumbling" to
the Jews--a "rock of offense" (Isaiah 8:14, Rom. 9:32, I Pet.
2:8).
He was to be hated without cause (Psalm 69:4, Isaiah 49:7,
John 7:48, John 15:25), rejected by the rulers (Psalm 118:22,
Matt. 21:42, John 7:48), betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9, Psalm
55:12,14, John 13:18,21), forsaken by His disciples (Zech. 13:7,
Matt. 26:31-56), sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12, Matt.
26:15), and His price given for the potter's field (Zech. 11:13,
Matt. 27:7). He was to be smitten on the cheek (Mic. 5:1, Matt.
27:30), spat upon (Isaiah 50:6, Matt. 27:30), mocked (Psalm 22:7-
8, Matt. 27:31,39-44), and beaten (Psalm 50:6, Matt. 26:67,
27:26,30).
His death by crucifixion is described in Psalm 22. The
meaning of His death, as a substitutionary atonement, is provided
in Isaiah 53. His hands and feet were to be pierced (Psalm
22:16, Zech. 12:10, John 19:18, John 19:37, John 20:25), yet not
one of His bones was to be broken (Ex. 12:46, Psalm 34:20, John
19:33-36). He was to suffer thirst (Psalm 22:15, John 19:28) and
be given vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matt. 27:34). He was to
be numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12, Matt. 27:38).
His body was to be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9, Matt.
27:57-60), but was not to see corruption (Psalm 16:10, Acts
2:31). He was to be raised from the dead (Psalm 2:7, 16:10, Acts
13:33), and ascend to the right hand of God (Psalm 68:18, Luke
24:51, Acts 1:9, Psalm 110:1, Heb 1:3).1
It is sometimes asserted that Jesus did not fulfill all of
the Messianic expectations outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures,
only many of them. It must be remembered, however, that Jesus
said repeatedly that he would be coming again in glory, and there
is every reason to expect these additional passages to be
fulfilled at that time. Certainly the vast number of prophecies
that he did fulfill defies all odds, such that, after considering
them carefully, it would take more faith to believe he was not
the Messiah than to believe that he was.2
The Biblical prophecies concerning Tyre, Sidon, Capernaum,
Chorazin, Bethsaida, Samaria, Ashkelon, Gaza, Jericho, Jerusalem,
Palestine, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, Assyria, and Edom, to name just a
few places, have all been fulfilled to the letter. Detailed
explanations of how these prophecies have been fulfilled can be
found in many books on the subject.
One of many examples would be the prophecy concerning Tyre
found in Ezekiel 26: 3-5,7,12,14,16:
Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against
thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up
against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break
down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her,
and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a
place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the
sea. . . . For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will
bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon . . .
and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy
dust in the midst of the water. . . . And I will make
thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to
spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I
the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God. . . .
Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from
their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off
their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves
with trembling.
This prophecy was written in 590 B.C. Four years later,
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, began laying siege to Tyre, a
process that took thirteen years. When he finally captured the
city, he broke down her walls and towers, but the rulers of Tyre
had taken everything of value to an island about half a mile off
the coast. Nebuchadnezzar simply destroyed the coastal city,
left it in ruins, and returned to Babylon.
In 322 B.C., Alexander the Great decided to capture the
island city of Tyre. In order to do this, he built a causeway
from the mainland to the island, taking stones, timber, and dirt
from the ruined city. His army then marched to the island city
and captured it. Other neighboring cities were so frightened by
the conquest of Tyre that they surrendered to Alexander without
opposition.
Today, the fresh water springs of Tyre still send out more
than ten million gallons of water a day, yet despite this source
of abundant drinking water, Tyre has never been rebuilt.
However, the seacoast for miles on either side of the springs is
now in use by fishermen. A photograph of the fishermen spreading
their nets over the ancient city of Tyre appears in Fulfilled
Prophecies That prove the Bible by George T. B. Davis.3
_______________________________________
1See Fred John Meldau, Messiah In Both Testaments (Denver:
Christian Victory Publishing Co., 1956).
2See, for example, Peter W. Stoner, Science Speaks, third ed.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), chapter 3, which considers the vast
mathematical improbability that any man could fulfill just eight
of the most obvious Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
3George T. B. Davis, Fulfilled Prophecies That Prove The Bible
(Philadelphia: Million Testament Campaign, 1931), p. 9.
PITCAIRN'S ISLAND
The story of the Pitcairn Bible is a testimony both to the
providence of God and to the value of the Bible in saving society
from chaos. Ginny Hastings has written of it, "with no law to
guide them, the mutineers of the Bounty turned an island paradise
into a living hell of sexual abuse, drunkenness and murder.
Their society was on the brink of collapse when one of the men
discovered an ancient book from the Bounty."1
The story begins with the events described in the well-known
book, Mutiny on the Bounty. Fletcher Christian, acting 2nd
Lieutenant, irritated at the arbitrary conduct of Lieut. Bligh,
began constructing a raft in order to leave the ship by night.
Another sailor suggested to him that he may as well take the ship
and turn the Captain adrift, since they were all dissatisfied.
He followed this suggestion, and the next day, April 28, 1789,
more than half the ship's company joined in the mutiny. The
Captain and his party were sent adrift, and after much suffering,
reached Timor.
Fletcher Christian took the Bounty and the rest of the crew
to Tahiti, where they had been previously. In September of the
same year, he and eight other men from the Bounty, six Tahitian
men, eleven Tahitian women and one child, sailed away from the
others, leaving them there at their request. At the beginning of
the following year, they landed on an uninhabited island,
Pitcairn's, and burned the ship in order to escape detection.
At first, the island seemed a paradise. But then the
Englishmen mistreated the Tahitians and stole one of their wives,
causing a rebellion. Within four years, all of the Tahitian men
and all but four of the Englishmen had been murdered. The only
survivors were Alexander Smith, Edward Young, Matthew Quintall,
William McCoy, ten women and some children.
McCoy learned how to distill liquor from the roots of the ti
plant, and eventually the men were drunk almost all the time,
living in a continual orgy with some of the women. Fearing for
their lives, the women and children fled to another part of the
island and build a fort for protection.
McCoy threw himself over the cliffs while drunk. Matthew
Quintal became drunk and insane, threatening the lives of
everyone else. Smith and Young had to axe him to death for the
safety of the others on the island.
Smith finally destroyed the still and all the liquor on the
island, and went through several months of withdrawal from
alcohol. Young was taken in by the women because he was dying of
consumption. While he was living alone for months, Smith
discovered the Bible and a Book of Common Prayer from the remains
of the Bounty, but he was illiterate.
Eventually, Young and the women returned to the village
where Smith was, where he taught Smith to read using the Bible,
and died in 1801. Alexander Smith continued to read to Bible in
its entirety, and grew to understand it over a period of several
years. Seeing the importance of teaching it to others, he began
teaching the children how to read, and eventually some of the
mothers learned as well. Using the Bible, he taught everyone
about the Christian faith and instituted a daily prayer time,
grace before meals, and Sunday worship. One of his prayers was
as follows:
Suffer me not O Lord to waste this day in Sin or folly.
But Let me Worship thee with much Delight. Teach me to
know more of thee and to serve thee better than ever I
have done before, that I may be fitter to dwell in
heaven, where thy worship and service are everlasting.
Amen.2
In 1808, Pitcairn's Island was discovered by captain Mayhew
Folger of an American ship. The members of the crew were shocked
to find that the island was inhabited by thirty-five English-
speaking people of Polynesian blood who were practicing the
Christian faith. The outside world was fascinated with the news
that Fletcher Christian's community had been discovered. The
English instructed every captain sailing to the south Pacific to
search for any mutineers so that they could be arrested and
deported to England to be punished for their crimes. Later, when
two British ships did visit Pitcairn's Island, they found such an
orderly colony that they decided to disobey orders and not report
their find of the Bounty survivors to London, although they did
annex the Island as a British colony.
King George of England later sent Captain Waldgrave to visit
Pitcairn's. Waldgrave wrote:
It was with great gratification that we observed the
Christian simplicity of the natives. They appeared to
have no guile. Their cottages were open to all and all
were welcome to their food.3
A Church and a school were later built on the island.
Alexander Smith felt a personal responsibility for the Christian
nurture and care of the many children on the island. After 1808,
as a precaution against the possibility of deportation on charges
of mutiny and murder, he changed his name to John Adams in honor
of the second president of the United States.
Smith (a.k.a. Adams) died in 1829 at the age of seventy, but
by 1840, Pitcairn's Island was still a thriving Christian colony.
A visitor at that time wrote as follows:
I then walked round and questioned several of the
people on the texts, and some of the chief Scripture
facts and doctrines, and most of them gave ready and
suitable answers. . . .
The islanders have prayers twice on the Sabbath; after
which Mr. Nobbs reads sermons from Burder, Watts, Blair, or
Whitefield. There is also a Sabbath-school, a Bible-class
is held on the Wednesday, and a day-school every morning and
afternoon.4
Before his death, Smith (a.k.a. Adams), whose eyesight was
failing, gave the Pitcairn Bible to Levi Hayden in exchange for a
Bible in larger print. In 1840, it was passed on to Rev. Daniel
Miner Lord, pastor of the Mariners' church in Boston, where it
became the subject of hundreds of addresses to Sunday Schools,
churches, and various religious meetings.5 It was later placed
in the Lenox Library collection of old and unusual Bibles at the
New York Public Library.
_______________________________________
1Ginny Hastings, "Ship of Fools: Mutiny on the Bounty," Issues &
Answers, Vol. 5, No. 8 (November, 1982), p. 1.
2Ibid., quoting Thomas B. Murray, Pitcairn: The Island, The
People and The Pastor (London: SPCK, 1877), p. 338.
3Ibid., quoting Harry L. Shapiro, The Heritage of the Bounty (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1936), p. 83.
4Thomas Heath, "The Pitcairn Islanders," The Evangelical Magazine
and Missionary Chronicle 19 (New Series) (October, 1841): 520-
522.
5New York Public Library, The Pitcairn Bible (New York: The New
York Public Library, 1934), p. 12.
THE AMAZING SURVIVAL OF THE WORD OF GOD
No book has ever been the subject of more continued attacks
upon it than the Bible. Despite the assaults mounted upon it for
millennia, it has emerged unscathed. F. Bettex of Stuttgart,
Germany has written:
Unchanged and unchangeable, this Bible stands for
centuries, unconcerned about the praise and the
reproach of men. With sublime freedom it strides
through the history of mankind, dismisses entire
nations with a glance, with a word, in order to tarry a
long time with the deeds of a shepherd. It rises like
an angel to heights that make peoples, passing hither
and thither, appear like swarms of grasshoppers, yea,
all nations like a drop in a bucket.1
In a book entitled The Wonder of the Book, Dysan Hague
described in detail how the Bible has withstood all of the
attacks upon it through the centuries. He wrote:
It is almost the only Book in the world that has stood
age after age of ferocious and incessant persecution.
Century after century men have tried to burn it and to
bury it. Crusade after crusade has been organized to
extirpate it. Kings of the earth set themselves, and
rulers of the church took counsel together to destroy
it from off the face of the earth. Diocletian, the
Roman Emperor in 303, inaugurated the most terrific
onslaught that the world has known upon a book. Almost
every Bible was destroyed, myriads of Christians
perished, and a column of triumph was erected over an
exterminated Bible with the inscription: "Extinco
nomine Christianorum" (the name of the Christian has
been extinguished). And yet not many years after, the
Bible came forth, as Noah from the ark, to repeople the
earth, and in the year 325 Constantine enthroned the
Bible as the Infallible Judge of Truth in the first
General Council.
Perhaps the most deadly persecution of all has been
during the last one hundred and fifty years. The
bitterest foes of the Bible, curiously enough, were men
who claimed liberty of thought; and Bolingbroke, and
Hume, and Voltaire, seemed so confident of the
extermination of the Bible, that the Frenchman declared
that a hundred years after his day not a Bible would be
found save as an antiquarian curiosity. Then came the
German rationalistic host, with the fiercest and
deadliest of all the attacks. Bauer, Strauss, and the
Tubingen School took up the cry of the Children of
Edom: "Down with it, down with it, even to the ground."
But "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh;
Jehovah shall have them in derision" (Ps. 2:4).
For here it is today; stronger than ever. It stands,
and it will stand. Yes, in spite of these age-long
persecutions the Word of the Lord is having free course
and is being glorified. It is being circulated at the
rate of millions of copies a year, in almost every
language of the globe. It has an influence it never
possessed before, greater in power, greater in life,
greater in freshness and the beauty of spring.2
One of the many books written expressly for the purpose of
discrediting the Bible was Bradlaugh's The Bible, What It Is
(London, 1857). The author of the book wrote, "this work was
intended to relieve the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
from the labor of re-translating the Bible, by proving that it is
not worth the trouble and the expense."3
Wilbur M. Smith went to the trouble to compare the
publishing history of Bradlaugh's book to that of the Bible in
the twentieth century. As of the time that Smith did his
investigation, not one single edition of Bradlaugh's book had
been published since 1905, while Great Britain had published over
400 million Bibles, and the entire Bible had been translated into
320 new languages from the time Bradlaugh wrote his book.4
The number of examples of failed attempts to discredit the
Bible is nearly endless, yet the Bible remains the most widely
read and sought-after book of all time.
_______________________________________
1Quoted by George T. B. Davis, Fulfilled Prophecies That Prove
the Bible (Philadelphia: Million Testaments Campaign, 1931),
p. 112.
2Dyson Hague, The Wonder of the Book (London: Marshall, Morgan &
Scott, n.d.), quoted in Ibid., pp. 108-110.
3Quoted by Wilbur M. Smith, Chats From A Minister's Library,
p. 256.
4Ibid.
DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the early twentieth century, most scholars dated the New
Testament documents as follows:
Matthew, A.D. 851
Mark, A.D. 60-652
Luke, A.D. 80-853
John, A.D. 90-954
Pauline Epistles, A.D. 48-645
For the four Gospels, these were the latest possible dates
of authorship; there were excellent reasons for earlier dating.
C. E. Raven wrote:
That Acts was written before St. Paul's trial at Rome
seems a strong probability, and the case for a
subsequent incorporation of Mark is not strong. The
general habit of placing the Synoptic Gospels in the
period A.D. 70-100 is inexplicable; for the evidence is
weaker than the objections. They reflect a time before
the scattering of the Palestinian Church and the
dispersion of the local and conservative community, a
time utterly unlike the age of experiment and
syncretism which followed Nero's persecution and the
sack of Jerusalem.6
Most scholars have considered Luke and Acts to be two parts
of one document.7 Because the book of Acts gives a detailed
account of the later portion of the life of the Apostle Paul, but
ends abruptly in A.D. 63 with Paul's two years at Rome (Acts
28:30) without mentioning that he was tried in Rome and martyred
under Nero,8 it would be reasonable to date the Gospel of Luke
and the book of Acts prior to A.D. 63 or 64.
Moreover, the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70,
and the city was overtaken at that time.9 The Jews and the
Palestinian church were scattered, causing conditions totally
different from what one would expect during the time of the
writing of these documents.
Because of these considerations and others, in the second
half of the twentieth century there was a trend toward an earlier
dating of the New Testament. For example, in a 1963 interview
with Christianity Today magazine, William F. Albright (1891-1971)
stated:
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. (very probably
sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)10
Albright was one of the world's foremost biblical archaeologists.
He distinguished himself enough to have an article devoted to him
in the 1966 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which stated
that he "considerably influenced the development of biblical and
related near eastern scholarship."11 His opinion was that of one
who had taken into account all the considerations involved in
making such a judgment. Because he was probably better informed
of these considerations than almost anyone else at the time, and
because he had first-hand knowledge of them, his opinion carried
tremendous weight.
For this reason, other scholars later began to reconsider
the matter. For example, John A. T. Robinson's book, Redating
the New Testament, dates all of the New Testament documents
between A.D. 47 and A.D. 70.12 It should be noted, however, that
early tradition assigns a later date to the works of the apostle
John, who wrote Revelation while in exile on the island of Patmos
(Rev. 1:9) in the fifteenth year of the reign of the emperor
Domitian (A.D. 96), according to Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, Book III, Chapter 18. This is confirmed by an earlier
source, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter XXX,
section 3.
In the middle of the nineteenth century it had been
confidently asserted by the very influential Tubingen school that
the four Gospels and the book of Acts did not exist before the
thirties of the second century A.D.13 Yet even at the time there
was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this assertion was
completely unfounded as was shown by Lightfoot,14 Tregelles15 and
Tischendorf,16 as well as others.17 The amount of evidence later
increased to the degree that the Tubingen views were no longer
held by scholars.18
The evidence for the New Testament writings has always been
considerably greater than the evidence for most classical works,
and historians have therefore protested vigorously against the
excessive skepticism of theologians in dealing with the
historical writings of the New Testament. Examples of such
scholars include Eduard Meyer,19 A. T. Olmstead,20 William M.
Ramsay21 and Henry J. Cadbury.22
There are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament, as well as 8,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate
and 1,000 of other early versions.23 Some of the best and most
important of the Greek New Testament go back to about A.D. 350.
Two important manuscripts are the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican
Library in Rome and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum.24
From the four hundreds A.D., we have the Codex Alexandrinus in
the British Museum, and from a hundred years later, the Codex
Bezae in the Cambridge University library, which contains the
Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.25
The textual advantage of the New Testament documents over
all other ancient manuscripts is that, in no other case is the
interval of time between date of authorship and date of earliest
extant manuscripts so short.26 Furthermore, the number of extant
manuscripts is far greater for the New Testament than for any
other classical work.27 For other ancient works, manuscript
attestation is poor in comparison. For example, we have, of the
seven surviving plays of Sophocles, four manuscripts that are of
any value, the earliest being written in the eleventh century,
1400 years after the poet's death.28 For Plato, we have eleven
manuscripts, the earliest being written about 1250 years after
his death.29 The History of Thucydides has eight manuscripts,
the
earliest being from the tenth century, 1300 years after his
death,30 and Herodotus also has eight manuscripts, the earliest
being from the tenth century, again 1300 years after his death.31
Yet there is no classical scholar who will doubt the authenticity
of these works, despite the paucity of extant manuscripts and
despite the gap of over 1,000 years between the time of
authorship and the time the earliest extant manuscript was
written.
Yet, in addition to the examples of the Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament documents that have been mentioned, we have the
Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, containing eleven papyrus
codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament
writings. The first contains the four Gospels and Acts and was
copied between A.D. 200 and 250, the second contains the letters
of Paul and Hebrews and was copied at about the same time, and
the third, which includes the book of Revelation, was copied
about 50 years later.32
Another discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated
not later than A.D. 150 by papyrological experts, which consists
of fragments of an unknown gospel and other early Christian
papyri.33
An earlier fragment, the John Rylands Fragment, dated on
paleographical grounds around A.D. 130, is a papyrus codex
containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, which was found in Egypt in
1917.34
The papyrus Bodmer II, written about A.D. 200, contains the
first 14 chapters of John with the exception of 22 verses and
portions of the last seven chapters.35
Frederic C. Kenyon, who was keeper of manuscripts in the
British Museum, wrote:
But besides confirming the . . . authenticity of the
canonical books, the new evidence tends to confirm the
general integrity of the text as it has come down to
us. . . . 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.36
In the writings of the early church fathers, we find
extensive quotes from the New Testament. The letter of Barnabas,
it is now agreed, could not be any later than A.D. 150 and might
be as early as A.D. 70.37 This letter quotes from Romans,
Ephesians, and Hebrews, and demonstrates a knowledge of eight
other New Testament books.38 Although the dating for the Didache
is not firmly established, there is good reason to believe that
it was in circulation prior to A.D. 70.39 The Didache
demonstrates a knowledge of Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans,
I Corinthians and I Peter, and possibly Hebrews and Jude.40 The
Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement of Rome also had early
circulation and popularity in the first century.41 This letter
quotes from Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews and possibly Acts.
Extensive familiarity with nine other New Testament books is
demonstrated.42 The letters of Ignatius of Antioch, all written
before his death, which could not have been later than A.D.
117,43
refer to Matthew, John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, and possibly eleven
other New Testament books.44 Polycarp's Letter to the
Philippians, also written prior to A.D. 117,45 quotes John,
Acts,
Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians(?), II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II
Timothy, Hebrews, James and I John.46 Other early Christian
writings (such as The Shepherd of Hermas and II Clement) contain
extensive quotations of the New Testament documents.47
From the writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus which
were recently discovered, we know that before A.D. 150 most of
the books of the New Testament were well known among the people
of this sect.48
A great deal of external evidence exists for the
authenticity of the New Testament documents. Papias (A.D. 60-
130), bishop of Hierapolis, writes the following on the basis of
information obtained from the "presbyter" John:
This also the Presbyter used to say, "When Mark became
Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although
not in order, all that he remembered of what was said
or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord nor
followed Him, but later, as I have said, he did Peter,
who made his teaching fit his needs without, as it
were, making any arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so
that Mark made no mistakes in thus writing some things
down as he [Peter] remembered them. For to one thing
he gave careful attention, to omit nothing of what he
heard and to falsify nothing in this."
Now Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew
language, and each one interpreted them as he was
able.49
Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna,
martyred in A.D. 156 after being a Christian for 86 years.
Polycarp had been a disciple of the Apostle John himself.
Irenaeus had often heard from Polycarp the eyewitness accounts of
Jesus received from John and others who knew Jesus.50 In
Adversus
haerese, III. I (ca. 180), Irenaeus writes:
Now these, all and each of them alike having the Gospel
of God,--Matthew for his part published also a written
Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, whilst
Peter and Paul were at Rome, preaching, and laying the
foundation of the Church. And after their departure,
Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, did himself
also publish unto us in writing the things which were
preached by Peter. And Luke too, the attendant of
Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him.
Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, who also
leaned on His Breast,--he again put forth his Gospel,
while he abode in Ephesus is Asia.51
The high importance of this testimony of Irenaeus is
demonstrated in the book, The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth
Gospel: It's Extent, Meaning, and Value, by Frank Grant Lewis.52
_______________________________________
1Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1925), p. 487, and Vincent Taylor,
The Gospels, A Short Introduction (London: Epworth Press, 1930),
p. 96.
2Streeter, p. 487, and Taylor, p. 59.
3Taylor, p. 86.
4Ibid., p. 99.
5F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
(Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1943), pp. 13, 14.
6Charles E. Raven, Jesus and the Gospel of Love (New York: Henry
Holt and Co., 1931), p. 128.
7Sir William M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician (New York: A. C.
Armstrong and Son, 1908), p. 6. However, Luke may have written
his Gospel earlier, while he was with Paul in Caesarea (Acts 23:
33-27:1), A.D. 58-60. See, for example, James Tate, The Horae
Paulinae of William Paley (London, 1840), Appendix E, pp. 162-
165.
8John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers
Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964), p. 35. Paul's martyrdom
may have taken place in A.D. 67 or 68 after a release from his
Roman imprisonment in A.D. 64, enabling him, in the interim, to
travel to Philippi, Ephesus, Crete, Troas, Corinth and Miletus as
indicated in Phil. 2:24, I Tim. 1:3, Tit. 1:5, and II Tim.
4:13,20.
9Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, 1966), XII,
1008.
10Christianity Today, VII, 359, January 18, 1963, "Toward a More
Conservative View," interview with William F. Albright.
11Ibid., I, 531.
12John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1976), p. 352.
13Albert Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den
Hauptmomenten seiner Entwicklung (Tubingen: Ludwig Friedrich
Fues, 1846), Vol. II, pp. 115-123.
14J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural
Religion (London: Macmillan and Co., 1889).
15Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of
the
Greek New Testament with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical
Principles (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1856).
16Constantine Tischendorf, When were our Gospels Written? (New
York: American Tract Society, 1866).
17F. W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul (New York: E. P.
Dutton & Co., 1879), Vol. I, pp. 10ff.
18Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the
Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1915), p. 38.
19Eduard Meyer, Ursprung Und Anfange Des Christentums (Stuttgart:
J. G. Cottaishe, 1962).
20A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History (New York:
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1942).
21William Ramsay, Luke the Physician (New York: A. C. Armstrong
and Son, 1908).
22Henry J. Cadbury, The Book of Acts in History (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1955).
23A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the
New Testament (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1925), p. 70; Bruce
M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2d ed. (New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 32-33, 36, 76; Norman L. Geisler
and William E. Nix, A General introduction to the Bible (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1968), p. 285.
24F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
(Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960), p. 16.
25Ibid., p. 16.
26Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the
New
Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., 1901), p. 4.
27Ibid., p. 4.
28F. W. Hall, A Companion to Classical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1913), pp. 270-271.
29Ibid., pp. 259-260.
30Ibid., pp. 279-280.
31Ibid., pp. 237-238. See also Metzger, p. 34, and Geisler and
Nix, p. 285.
32Bruce, p. 17, and Metzger, pp. 37-38.
33H. Idris Bell and T. C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel
and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Trustees of the British
Museum, 1935).
34C. H. Roberts, An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel
(Manchester University Press, 1935).
35Bruce, p. 18; Metzger, pp. 39-40.
36Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York:
Harper
and Brothers, 1940), pp. 288-289.
37J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Book House, 1978), p. 134.
38Committee of the Oxford Historical Society of Historical
Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1905), pp. 1-23.
39Jean-Paul Audet, La Didache Instructions Des Apotres (Paris:
Libraire Lecoffre, 1958), pp. 187-210.
40The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 24-36.
41Glimm, p. 4.
42The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 37-62.
43Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1950), p. 204. Ignatius was probably martyred c. A.D.
108-110.
44The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 63-83.
45Lightfoot, p. 92.
46The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 84-104.
47Ibid., pp. 105-136.
48Bruce, p. 19.
49This quotation from Papias is cited in Eusebius' Historica
ecclesiastica, III. 39, reprinted in Roy J. Deferrari, Eusebius
Pamphili Ecclesiastical History (New York: Fathers of the Church,
Inc., 1953), p. 329.
50Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 20, reprinted
in Roy J. Deferrari, Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History
(New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 329. Eusebius
writes as follows:
In the letter to Florinus which we have mentioned
above, Irenaeus again speaks of his association with
Polycarp, saying: ". . . so that I can tell even the
place where the blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his
goings and comings, and manner of his life, and the
appearance of his body, and the discourses which he
gave to the multitude, and how he reported his living
with John and with the rest of the Apostles who had
seen the Lord, and how he remembered their words, and
what the things were which he heard from them about the
Lord, and about His teaching."
51Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1, reprinted in
John
Keble, Five Books of S. Irenaeus Against Heresies (London:
Rivingtons, 1877), p. 204.
52Department of Biblical and Patristic Greek, University of
Chicago, Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related
to the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1908), Vol. 1, pp. 451-514.
MANUSCRIPT ATTESTATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
There are many important old manuscripts of the Old
Testament. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of
the most ancient of these was the Cairo Codex, containing the
former and latter prophets, copied in A.D. 895 by Moses Ben
Asher, a leader of the Masoretes, in Tiberias, Palestine.
One of three important manuscripts copied in the 900's A.D.
was the Leningrad Codex of the prophets (copied in A.D. 916),
containing only the latter prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and the twelve minor prophets). Two others are the Aleppo Codex
(copied by Aaron ben Asher in A.D. 930) and the British Museum
Codex (copied in A.D. 950).1 The Aleppo Codex was complete until
it had to be rescued from a burning synagogue in Aleppo, Syria in
1948 and smuggled into Israel. The British Museum Codex
(Oriental 4445) is an incomplete manuscript of the Pentateuch,
containing Genesis 39:20 through Deuteronomy 1:33.
The Leningrad Codex (copied in A.D. 1008) is now the largest
and only complete manuscript of the Old Testament. It had been
copied from a corrected codex prepared by Rabbi Aaron ben Moses
ben Asher before A.D. 1000. The Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets
was copied in A.D. 1105, while the Cairo Geniza fragments (6th-
9th centuries A.D.) contain over 120 Biblical manuscripts
discovered during the rebuilding of the synagogue at Cairo,
Egypt, in 1890.2
The accuracy of these manuscripts has been corroborated not
only by their faithfulness to the Septuagint (a translation of
the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek done during the third and second
centuries B.C.)3 and the Vulgate (a translation into Latin
completed by Jerome in A.D. 405), but by their striking
faithfulness to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (copied between 130 B.C. and A.D. 70)
consist of 40,000 fragments. Five hundred books have been
reconstructed from them, one hundred of which are from the Old
Testament in Hebrew. The only book of the Old Testament not
represented is the book of Esther. Included is a complete
manuscript of the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah copied in 125
B.C., which is almost identical to the Masoretic text of A.D. 916
(the Leningrad Codex of the prophets), indicating the unusual
accuracy of the Masoretes as copyists over the period of one
thousand years.4
____________________________
1Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
Revised Ed. (Chicago: Moddy Press, 1974), p. 43, states that this
manuscript was actually copied in A.D. 850, but that the vowel
points were added a century later.
2Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to
the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), pp. 249-250.
3Ibid., pp. 253-254.
4Ibid., p. 254-263.
THE FORMATION OF THE CANON: THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Hebrew Scriptures were recognized as authoritative at
their inception, and were immediately accepted as such by the
Jewish people. The acceptance of the Pentateuch, for example, is
recorded in Deuteronomy 32:46-47, and in Joshua 1:7,8.
As a matter of course, the Church of the first century
regarded the Hebrew Scriptures as inspired. Jesus, in Luke
24:44, refers to the Law, the prophets, and the psalms (or the
writings) as divinely authoritative and canonical.
The Jews accepted all of the 39 books of the Old Testament
as inspired. A confirmation of public opinion along these lines
was made at the synod at Jamnia. When the destruction of
Jerusalem was imminent in A.D. 70, Yochanan ben Zakkai, a great
Rabbi in the school of Hillel in the Pharisaic party, obtained
permission from the Romans to reconvene the Sanhedrin on a purely
spiritual basis at Jabneh or Jamnia. Objections had been raised
by some of the Jews to the canonical recognition of a few books
(Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther), and their
canonicity was reaffirmed at this time. All of the books that
they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally
accepted, although questions had been raised about some of them.
On the other hand, those that they refused to admit, such as
Ecclesiasticus, had never been included.1
Philo (20 B.C. - A.D. 50), the learned Jew in Alexandria,
accepted the Hebrew canon. For him, the Law (the five books of
Moses, or the first five books of the Bible) was pre-eminently
inspired, but he also acknowledged the authority of the other
books of the Hebrew canon. He did not regard the apocryphal
books as authoritative. This suggests that, although the
apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), they were not really
considered canonical by the Alexandrian Jews.
Josephus, the eminent Jewish historian who lived in the
first century A.D., also echoes prevailing opinion about which
books were canonical and which ones were not. Although he used
the Septuagint freely, he, also, did not regard the Apocrypha as
canonical.
The earliest extant Christian list of Old Testament books
was recorded by Melito, bishop of Sardis in A.D. 170. This list
does not mention Lamentations (which was usually understood to be
part of the book of Jeremiah), or Nehemiah, which was normally
appended to Ezra. The only other omission was the book of
Esther.
The late fourth century writer Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis
in Cyprus, quoted another ancient list from the second century
which included all the books corresponding to our thirty-nine,
except Lamentations, which was probably considered an appendix to
Jeremiah.
Origen (A.D. 185-254) also provided a list of the Old
Testament books in use corresponding to what we now accept as the
Old Testament.2 Athanasius (c. 296-373), bishop of Alexandria,
in his Easter Letter (A.D. 367), provides the same list, except
that he omits Esther and appends Baruch to Jeremiah and
Lamentations. The Easter Letter also names other books which he
stated were not canonical but suitable to be read to new
converts. Among these were some of the Old Testament apocryphal
books and the book of Esther.
Jerome (A.D. 347-420) began translating the Bible into the
Latin Vulgate in A.D. 382. The Old Testament portion of this
version of the Bible was completed in A.D. 405, and also
contained the 39 books we recognize as the Old Testament. He did
not hold the Old Testament apocryphal books in high estimation,
but he later translated a few of them, although reluctantly.3
For Christians, the canonical authority of the Old Testament
is established beyond doubt by the fact that the Hebrew Canon of
the Old Testament was accepted as divinely authoritative by Jesus
Christ and by His disciples.4
____________________________
1F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, third ed. (Westwood,
NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963), pp. 97-98.
2Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25.
3Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to
the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), p. 338.
4Edward J. Young, "The Canon of the Old Testament," in Carl F. H.
Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1958), p. 168.
THE FORMATION OF THE CANON: THE NEW TESTAMENT
The determination of the Canon of the New Testament was not
the result of any pronouncement, either by an official of the
Church or by an ecclesiastical body. Rather, the Canon was
determined by the use of these books throughout all of the
Churches during the first and second centuries. The
establishment of the Canon was the process by which formal
recognition was given to the writings of Scripture already
recognized as authoritative.
Most of the New Testament Scriptures were accepted
immediately. For example, in II Peter 3:16, it is taken for
granted that the Pauline epistles were Scriptures on a par with
the Old Testament.
The early heresies of the Church played an important part in
influencing the Christians to make clear determinations as to
which writings were authoritative as Scripture. The heretic
Marcion had excluded everything except ten Pauline epistles and
certain selected portions of the Gospel according to Luke.
Moreover, the Gnostics were introducing secret "Gospels,"
attempting to advance them as authoritative Scripture.
One of the earliest writers to respond to the Gnostics was
Irenaeus. His writings assume the authority of the books of the
New Testament in common use during the second century, although
his citations are from only 23 of the 27 New Testament books.
Three of the four books that he does not cite were cited as
Scriptures by earlier Christian writers,1 and the fourth
(III John) was probably not cited simply because of its brevity;
Irenaeus probably simply did not have occasion to use it during
the course of his arguments.
An early list of the books of the New Testament (A.D. 170)
appears in the Muratorian fragment, found by L. A. Muratori in
manuscript form and published in 1740. Although the fragment is
mutilated, it attests to the widespread use as Scripture of all
books of the New Testament except Hebrews, James, I and II Peter.
However, the Apostolic Fathers had already cited all of these
four books as Scripture. The Muratorian fragment also mentions
The Shepherd of Hermas as worthy to be read in church, but not to
be included with the apostolic writings. Curiously, the Wisdom
of Solomon, an Old Testament Apocryphal book, is also included as
canonical.
Another early list appeared in the Codex Barococcio (A.D.
206), which included 64 of the 66 books of the present-day Bible.
Esther and Revelation were omitted, but Revelation had formerly
been regarded as Scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Canon.
In A.D. 230, Origen (A.D. 185-254) stated that all
Christians acknowledged as Scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the
thirteen epistles of Paul, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. He
added that the following were disputed by some people: Hebrews,
II Peter, II John, III John, James, Jude, the Epistle of
Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.2 In other words, all the churches by
this time were in agreement about most of the books, but a few
doubted some of the epistles that were not as well known. Others
were inclined to include a few books that eventually did not
secure a permanent place among the canonical books.3
By A.D. 300, all the New Testament books we presently use
were generally accepted in the churches, although in a few
places, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, Hebrews, and
Revelation were not in use.4 Doubts about these books faded
during the next fifty years, so that by A.D. 367, Athanasius
listed all the 27 books as canonical in his Easter Letter, which
also recommended certain other books for private reading only,
such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache.
The Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the third synod of
Carthage (A.D. 397) also recognized these 27 books as canonical,
as did the highly influential church Fathers Jerome (A.D. 340-
420) and Augustine (A.D. 354-430). They did not confer upon
these any authority that they did not already possess; they
merely recognized their previously established canonicity.5
____________________________
1Ignatius refers to Philemon, while Clement of Rome cites James
and II Peter. The Epistle of Barnabas also cites II Peter.
2Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 25.
3F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, third ed. (Westwood,
NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963), p. 112.
4Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 25.
5Bruce, p. 113.
TRANSMISSION OF THE BIBLE
The accuracy of the present-day Hebrew version of the Old
Testament is a result of the fastidious care with which the
Sopherim and the Masoretes transmitted it. The Sopherim copied
manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures from about 300 B.C. until
A.D. 500. According to the Talmud, they came to be called
"Sopherim" because, in their endeavor to preserve the text from
alteration or addition, they counted the number of words in each
section of Scripture, as well as the number of verses and
paragraphs.
During this time, there were two general classes of
manuscript copies, the synagogue rolls and private copies. Even
the private copies, or "common copies" of the Old Testament text,
which were not used in public meetings, were preserved with great
care. For the synagogue rolls, however, there was a very
elaborate set of rules for the copyists. The manuscript had to
be prepared by a Jew, written on the skins of clean animals and
fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. Every
skin was to contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout
the codex. The length of each column was to be no less than 48
and no more than 60 lines. The breadth was to be 30 letters.
The ink was to be prepared according to a definite special
recipe. An authentic copy was to be used from which to copy, and
the transcriber was not to deviate from it in the least. No word
or letter, not even a yod, was to be written from memory. The
scribe was to examine carefully the codex to be copied. Between
all of the consonants of the new copy, a space of at least the
thickness of a hair or thread had to intervene. Between every
parashah, or section, there was to be a breadth of nine
consonants. Between every book, there was to be three lines.1
During the period A.D. 500-900, the text of the Hebrew Bible
was standardized by the Masoretes, who were also very careful in
the transmission of the text. They counted every letter and
marked the middle letter and middle word of each book, of the
Pentateuch and of the whole Hebrew Bible, and counted all
parashas (sections), verses, and words for every book. These
procedures were a manifestation of the great respect they had for
the sacred Scriptures, and secured their minute attention to the
precise transmission of the text.
The Masoretes also introduced a complete system of vowel
pointings and punctuation for the text. Because of their high
regard for faithfulness to the text in transmission, wherever
they felt that corrections or improvements should be made, they
placed them in the margin.2 They retained certain marks of the
earlier scribes relating to doubtful words and offered various
possibilities as to what they were. Among the many lists they
drew up was one containing all the words that occur only twice in
the Old Testament.
Accuracy was also a primary consideration in the
transmission of the books of the New Testament. After
Christianity became legal in A.D. 313, commercial book
manufacturers, or scriptoria, were used to produce copies of the
New Testament books. Bruce Metzger wrote:
In order to ensure greater accuracy, books produced in
scriptoria were commonly checked over by a corrector
. . . specially trained to rectify mistakes in copying.
His annotations in the manuscript can usually be
detected today from differences in styles of
handwriting or tints of ink. . . .
When prose works were copied, a line called a
stichos, having sixteen (or sometimes fifteen)
syllables, was frequently used as a measure for
determining the market price of a manuscript. . . . The
application of stichometric reckoning served also as a
rough and ready check on the general accuracy of a
manuscript, for obviously a document which was short of
the total number of stichoi was a defective copy. . . .
In order to secure a high degree of efficiency and
accuracy, certain rules pertaining to the work of
scribes were developed and enforced in monastic
scriptoria. The following are examples of such
regulations prepared for the renowned monastery of the
Studium at Constantinople. About A.D. 800 the abbot of
this monastery, Theodore the Studite, who was himself
highly skilled in writing an elegant Greek hand,
included in his rules for the monastery severe
punishments for monks who were not careful in copying
manuscripts. A diet of bread and water was the penalty
set for the scribe who became so much interested in the
subject-matter of what he was copying that he neglected
his task of copying. Monks had to keep their parchment
leaves neat and clean, on penalty of 130 penances. If
anyone should take without permission another's
quaternion (that is, the ruled and folded sheets of
parchment), fifty penances were prescribed. If anyone
should make more glue than he could use at one time,
and it should harden, he must do fifty penances. If a
scribe broke his pen in a fit of temper (perhaps after
having made some accidental blunder near the close of
an otherwise perfectly copied sheet), he had to do
thirty penances.3
The accuracy of the present-day Greek version of the New
Testament has resulted from the comparison of thousands of
manuscripts by textual critics who have been able to separate
them into families on the basis of certain variations that each
manuscript family has in common. The principles of textual
criticism enable scholars to determine which versions of the text
are predecessors of the others, thereby coming close to the
original reading.
While there are many variant readings in the documents of
the New Testament, the vast majority of them are of very minor
significance, and, according to A. T. Robertson, affect a
"thousandth part of the text."4 This minuscule portion of the
text does not affect any aspect of Christian doctrine. F. C.
Grant wrote in his Introduction to the Revised Standard Version
of the New Testament that, of the variant readings in the New
Testament manuscripts, "none has turned up thus far that requires
a revision of Christian doctrine."5 Philip Schaff wrote that not
one of the variant readings affects "an article of faith or a
precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and
undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture
teaching."6
The great multitude of variant readings of the text supplies
abundant means for checking on the accuracy of those variants.
The criteria used in choosing among conflicting readings in New
Testament texts can be found in the introduction to Bruce M.
Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United
Bible Societies, 1971), pp. xxiv-xxviii.
_______________________________________
1Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to
the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), pp. 240-241, citing
Samuel Davidson, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 2d ed.,
p.89.
2Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction,
Revised ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), p. 63.
3Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2d ed. (New
York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 15, 16, 19.
4Archibald T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism
of the New Testament, p. 22, as quoted by Geisler and Nix,
p. 366.
5F. C. Grant, An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of
the New Testament (1946), p. 42, quoted by F. F. Bruce, The Books
and the Parchments, third ed. (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell
Co., 1963), p. 189.
6Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English
Version, 3d ed., rev., p. 177, as quoted by Geisler and Nix,
p. 366.
THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
In II Timothy 3:16, it is stated that "all Scripture is
inspired by God." The Greek word , translated here
"inspired by God," literally means "God-breathed." That is, the
Scriptures are a product of the creative activity of the divine
breath. As Alan Stibbs has observed, this "indicates that
Scripture has in its origin this distinctive hallmark, that it
owes its very existence to the direct creative activity of God
himself."1
It is this same divine breath that brought about the
creation of the heavens: "By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth"
(Psalm 33:6). God's breath is "the irresistible outflow of His
power."2 The divine breath also brought about the creation of
man: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul" (Genesis 2:7).
The divine origin of the Scriptures is reiterated in
II Peter 1:20,21, which states that "no prophecy of Scripture
came about by the prophets' own interpretation. For prophecy
never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God
as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." B. B. Warfield
wrote as follows with respect to this passage:
But there is more here than a simple assertion of the
Divine origin of Scripture. We are advanced somewhat
in our understanding of how God has produced the
Scriptures. It was through the instrumentality of men
who "spake from him." More specifically, it was
through an operation of the Holy Ghost on these men
which is described as "bearing" them. The term here
used is a very specific one. It is not to be
confounded with guiding, directing, or controlling, or
even leading in the full sense of that word. It goes
beyond all such terms, in assigning the effect produced
specifically to the active agent. What is "borne" is
taken up by the "bearer," and conveyed by the
"bearer's" power, not its own, to the "bearer's" goal,
not its own. The men who spoke from God are here
declared, therefore, to have been taken up by the Holy
Spirit and brought by His power to the goal of His
choosing. The things which they spoke under this
operation of the Spirit were therefore His things, not
theirs.3
Geisler and Nix have suggested, as a working definition of
inspiration, that it is "that mysterious process by which the
divine causality worked through the human prophets without
destroying their individual personalities and styles, to produce
divinely authoritative writings."4 In other words, the
Scriptures are of divine origin, but they are also of human
origin. That is to say, God used human beings with all of their
inevitable imperfections to provide us with a divinely determined
body of literature. It is in keeping with the character of God
that He would demonstrate his omnipotence by accomplishing both.
It is beyond human ability to comprehend how the imperfect could
be used in the creation of that which is perfect, or how fallible
people could be used to write an infallible body of literature,
but this is nothing more than a specific example of the fact that
the doctrines of divine predestination and human free will are
equally valid simultaneously. How both could be true at the same
time is an unfathomable mystery.
The mystery of inspiration has often been compared to the
mystery of the incarnation. Just as Jesus is both divine and
human, so the Scriptures are both divine and human. To emphasize
one at the expense of the other is to fall into heresy.
__________________________________
1Alan M. Stibbs, "The Witness of Scripture to Its Inspiration,"
in Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 109.
2Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
(Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1970), p. 133.
3Ibid., p. 137.
4Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to
the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), p. 29.
THE CLAIMS OF THE BIBLE CONCERNING ITSELF
The Biblical narratives carry with them the claim of
authenticity for the events they describe. For example, the
authors of the New Testament appealed to themselves as
eyewitnesses of the events that they proclaimed. John wrote:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of
life--the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and
testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life
which was with the Father and was made manifest to us--
that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to
you, so that you may have fellowship with us
(I John 1:1-3).
Appeal to eyewitness testimony abounds in the New Testament.
In II Peter 1:16 we read:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we
made known to you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
John, in his Gospel account, writes:
He who saw it has borne witness--his testimony is true,
and he knows that he tells the truth--that you also may
believe (John 19:35).
As we have seen, the authenticity of all these documents is
extremely well attested. For example, it would be next to
impossible to find a present-day scholar who denies the
authenticity of Paul writing to the Corinthians in A.D. 55, where
he says:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I
also received, that Christ died for our sins in
accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with
the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to
the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred
brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one
untimely born, he appeared also to me (I Cor. 15:3-8).
In writing this letter, Paul leaves himself wide open to
cross-examination, exposing himself to the possibility of
humiliation and censure should his claims prove to be false. It
would certainly be a deterrent to his mission if his claims were
found to be false by people cross-examining any of the five
hundred witnesses to whom Paul refers.
Luke records in the book of Acts, that, when Peter and John
were charged not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus,
they answered:
Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to
you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot
but speak of what we have seen and heard (Acts
4:19,20).
Other places in the book of Acts where there is appeal to
eyewitness testimony are Acts 1:22, 2:22, 2:32, 3:15, 4:33, 5:32,
10:39, and 13:30,31.
Not only is it the case that the early Christian writers
appealed to eyewitness testimony concerning the events they had
seen, but they appealed to the reader concerning his own
knowledge of the events that had occurred. For example, at the
beginning of his account, Luke writes:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative
of the things which have been accomplished among us,
just as they were delivered to us by those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things
closely for some time past, to write an orderly account
for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know
the truth concerning the things of which you have been
informed (Luke 1:1-4).
According to the book of Acts, Peter, addressing the men of
Judea and Jerusalem, stated:
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a
man attested to you by God with mighty works and
wonders and signs which God did through him in your
midst, as you yourselves know . . . (Acts 2:22).
Appeal is made by Paul in Acts 26:26 to the awareness that
king Agrippa had concerning the events that had occurred:
For the king knows about these things, and to him I
speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these
things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in
a corner.
It is clear, therefore, that the New Testament authors
appealed not only to themselves as eyewitnesses of the events,
but also to the knowledge of the hearers and readers concerning
the events that had occurred among them.
A. T. Olmstead, in discussing the eyewitness testimony
offered by John in his Gospel concerning the resurrection of
Lazarus, writes:
Such is the story originally told by John and with all
the circumstantial detail of the convinced eyewitness.
It is utterly alien in form to the literary miracle
tale.1
Concerning the resurrection of Jesus and John's testimony,
Olmstead writes:
This is the story of the empty tomb--told by an
undoubted eyewitness--full of life, and lacking any
detail to which the skeptic might take justifiable
objection. . . .
This likewise is the testimony of a convinced
eyewitness; if modern scholars do not accept the vision
as objective reality, the blame should be laid on the
psychologist and not the historian. . . .
Such is the outline of the resurrection
appearances as we can reconstruct from our sources the
earliest accounts. Our picture may not be quite exact,
but it cannot be far wrong. These stories must have
originated within a few days after the discovery of the
empty tomb, and have been written down within the first
few years after the organization of the primitive
church. Otherwise, it is quite impossible to
understand the survival of the empty tomb story so
unnecessary to confirm their own faith after the full
acceptance of the resurrection, or the still more
amazing survival of those constant doubts of the
disciples themselves, for to invent them only a few
years later would have been a public scandal.
Of one thing we may be sure: the appearances
cannot be reckoned as mere literary devices. Not only
do they betray their primitive character, they do not
hesitate to relate to their discredit the doubts of
their church leaders, written down and circulated while
those leaders were yet living and able if they wished
to refute them.2
One characteristic that separates the New Testament accounts
from most accounts of legend or mythology is that the skepticism
of the people is portrayed in detail and emphasis is placed upon
belief. The fact that these writers should be concerned with
belief at all is quite interesting, for it is minimal, if not
nonexistent, in most accounts of legend or mythology. The
emphasis upon belief is an indication that the New Testament
authors were totally convinced that they were writing completely
valid historical accounts. If they did not believe what they
were writing, then they were lying with the specific purpose of
deception, fully conscious of what they were doing, in a
malicious attempt to manipulate the people of their day. One
certainly cannot suppose that the people of Christ's time had a
propensity for believing in the miraculous. Such an emphasis as
exists in the New Testament upon belief would be totally
unnecessary and out of place if that were the case. The account
of what occurs in connection with the belief of the people is
incredibly realistic. There were people who believed but were
too afraid to let it be known (John 12:42 and 19:38). The people
described are true to life. It would be only natural that people
would doubt the claims of Christ, and this is exactly how they
are represented (see John 2:18, 6:30, 6:42, 8;51-53, 20:25;
Acts 7:51, 4:3,4; I Cor. 15:12). The characters are not two
dimensional; they do not lack depth. Peter loses his faith after
the arrest of Jesus (John 18:17). He is quite human--he has
nothing in common with the modern stereotype of the naive peasant
living two thousand years ago who is willing to believe whatever
he is told. Nor is this stereotype valid concerning most of the
other people mentioned in the New Testament. Their depth of
personality is very well portrayed by the writers of these
accounts.
Not only do all of the Scriptures carry with them the claim
to be describing events that have really taken place, but the
Biblical authors believed that whatever had previously been
recorded in Scripture had actually happened. For example, the
book of Joshua presupposes that the events recorded in the
Pentateuch had actually occurred. The Bible consistently builds
upon the historicity of previously recorded events and is
intelligible only if these prior events really happened.
Although not a believer himself, Erich Auerbach, in a
comparison of the Bible with the works of Homer, provides us with
one of the best descriptions of what the Bible claims for itself:
It is all very different in the Biblical stories. . . .
Their religious intent involves an absolute claim to
historical truth. . . . The Biblical narrator . . .
had to believe in the objective truth of the story of
Abraham's sacrifice . . . . He had to believe in it
passionately; or else . . . he had to be a conscious
liar--no harmless liar like Homer, who lied to give
pleasure, but a political liar with a definite end in
view, lying in the interest of a claim to absolute
authority . . . . Woe to the man who did not believe
it! One can perfectly well entertain historical doubts
on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus'
wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel
precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without
believing in Abraham's sacrifice, it is impossible to
put the narrative of it to the use for which it was
written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible's
claim to truth is not only far more urgent than
Homer's, it is tyrannical--it excludes all other
claims. The world of the Scripture stories is not
satisfied with claiming to be a historically true
reality--it insists that it is the only real world, is
destined for autocracy. All other scenes, issues, and
ordinances have no right to appear independently of it,
and it is promised that all of them, the history of
mankind, will be given their due place within its
frame, will be subordinated to it. The Scripture
stories do not, like Homer's, court our favor, they do
not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us--
they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be
subjected we are rebels. . . .
Far from seeking, like Homer, merely to make us
forget our own reality for a few hours, it seeks to
overcome our reality: we are to fit our life into its
world, feel ourselves to be elements in its structure
of universal history . . . .
The Old Testament . . . presents universal
history: it begins with the beginning of time, with the
creation of the world, and will end with the Last Days,
the fulfilling of the Covenant, with which the world
can only be conceived as an element in this sequence;
into it everything that is known about the world . . .
must be fitted as an ingredient of the divine
plan. . . . The most striking piece of interpretation
of this sort occurred in the first century of the
Christian era.3
This striking passage expresses exactly what the Bible
claims for itself. The Scriptures claim to be valid in an
absolute sense, such that all counterclaims are excluded. If we
do not subordinate ourselves to it, we are in rebellion against
God.
__________________________________
1A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1942), p. 206.
2Ibid., pp. 248, 249, 251.
3Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in
Western Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1953), pp. 14-16.
THE CLAIMS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR ITSELF
During the course of the history of Israel, the authors of
the Old Testament made constant references to the portions of the
Hebrew Scriptures that had already been written. From these
citations, it is easy to demonstrate that the Old Testament
treats itself as "the written record of the words of God as they
were given by God, and as they were recorded by men who were
specially designated and commanded by God to this work; and that
this written record was preserved by the Jewish people and
accepted by them as authoritative."1
The underlying unity of this body of literature is evident
not only in its internal harmony and consistency of theme, but in
the references to it as a whole by both Biblical and ancient
extrabiblical authors.
According to the Old Testament, the inspiration of its
several authors extended not only to the spoken words of Moses
and the prophets, but to their writings. In many cases, God
specifically commanded His Word to be written. In Exodus 17:14,
the Lord said to Moses, "write this for a memorial in a book, and
rehearse it in the ears of Joshua," and according to Deuteronomy
31:24-26, Moses wrote all of the words of the Pentateuch in a
book. God also commanded his Word to be written in Exodus 34:27,
Numbers 33:2, Isaiah 8:1, Isaiah 30:8, Jeremiah 25:13, Jeremiah
30:1,2, Jeremiah 36:21,28, Ezekiel 24:1,2, Daniel 12:4, and
Habakkuk 2:2.
The historical portions of the Scriptures were included
among the things written in accordance with the express command
of the Lord (Numbers 33:2). In many cases, the prophetic nature
of what was being written at the Lord's command was such that the
words would stand as a testimony against unbelievers at the time
of their fulfillment. In such places as Jeremiah 36:21-32, it
becomes clear that it was not only the essential content that was
important, but also the very words in which it was expressed.
Precise indications are given as to the time and place at
which the word of God is given. For example, in Ezekiel 24:1,2,
it says, "in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day
of the month, the word of the Lord came to me . . . ." Moreover,
evidence is provided in order to demonstrate that the words are
from God. The passage continues: "Son of man, write down the
name of this day, this very day. The king of Babylon has laid
siege to Jerusalem this very day." Ezekiel was in Babylon when
he wrote this, so he would have had no way of knowing what was
happening in Jerusalem apart from prophetic revelation. What he
wrote was open to public examination, and the claim for its
divine origin could be either confirmed or disconfirmed when the
news from Jerusalem reached Babylon.
The suppression of the human factor in many of the passages
of the Old Testament provides a graphic illustration of the
extent to which the prophets were carried, or borne along, by the
Spirit of God, as they spoke. In such cases, the prophet begins
by speaking of God in the third person, but then changes to the
first person. This is evident, for example, in Isaiah 10:12,
Isaiah 19:1,2, Hosea 6:1-4, Micah 1:3-6, and Zechariah 9:4-6.
The Old Testament also claims for itself that it was given
through certain specially designated people, known as prophets.
The prophet was God's mouthpiece, or instrument of communication.
Each prophet was carefully prepared for this purpose. It is
stated of Jeremiah that he was prepared for this important work
from the time he was in his mother's womb (Jeremiah 1:5).
It is not claimed that these people always spoke infallibly.
They only spoke infallibly when the Lord was putting a word in
their mouth. This would always happen at a specific time. For
example, Ezekiel wrote, "In the sixth year, in the ninth month,
on the fifth day of the month, as I sat in my house, with the
elders of Judah sitting before me, the hand of the Lord God fell
there upon me . . ." (Ezekiel 8:1). The prophets were able to
distinguish clearly between what was revealed to them and what
was from themselves.
The true prophets accused the false prophets of speaking
without being sent from God. This is particularly evident in
Jeremiah 14:14,15, Jeremiah 23:26, Jeremiah 29:9, and Ezekiel
13:2,3,6, where God says to Ezekiel, "Son of man, prophesy
against the prophets of Israel that prophesy out of their own
hearts."
One striking indication that the Old Testament was given by
God to these particular individual writers is that at times they
did not understand what they had written. God told Daniel to go
on his way because the words He had given him were closed up and
sealed until the time of the end (Daniel 12:8,9). If we are to
treat the Old Testament with any integrity, then we must realize
that the words of the prophets were not the expression of
religious genius, but that they were given directly by God.
There are many prophetic formulae used in the Old Testament
to indicate that the text is God-given. For example, it says in
Psalm 68:11 that "the Lord gave the word." Other similar
expressions include "the Lord said," "the word of the Lord came
upon me," "thus saith the Lord," "the Spirit came upon me," "the
power of God was upon him," " the Lord spoke," and "the mouth of
the Lord has spoken it." Variations of such phrases occur over
3800 times in the Old Testament.
It is clear from statements made by the Old Testament
prophets that the word of God came to them from without. In
Ezekiel 2:2, for example, God picked up Ezekiel and set him upon
his feet before speaking to him.
That the prophets were set apart by God for their work is
evident in the Lord's commission to each of them. For example,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Moses at the burning bush were all told
that they were specifically designated by God as spokesmen for
Him.
The claim of the Old Testament for its divine inspiration
extends to its very words. In Jeremiah 1:9 the Lord says,
"Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." In Exodus 4:10-15 it
is also the very words that are to be put in the mouth of God's
spokesman. In Exodus 34:27, God commands that specific words be
written. Similar statements are made in Exodus 35:1,
Isaiah 59:21, Jeremiah 7:27, Jeremiah 13:12, Jeremiah 30:1,2,
Ezekiel 24:2, and Ezekiel 37:16. In Jeremiah 36, Jeremiah
dictates the words of God to the scribe Baruch. In Zechariah
7:4-7, the people are denounced because they have not listened to
the words brought to them by previous prophets.
The Old Testament also claims for itself that it was
carefully preserved by the Jewish people, and that it was
completely authoritative for them. The tablets containing the
ten commandments that Moses took down with him from Mt. Sinai, in
accordance with the command of the Lord, were placed in the ark
of the covenant, which was at the very center of Jewish worship
(Exodus 25:16, 40:20, Deuteronomy 10:5). Five hundred years
later these tablets of the law were still in the ark
(I Kings 8:9). Alongside the ark was kept the entire book of the
law, the Pentateuch (Deut. 31:24-26). Both the tables of the law
and the book of the law were kept with care. The book of the law
was to be read to the people every seven years (Deut. 31:9-13).
Every future king was to make a copy of the law in book form so
that he could read it all of his life (Deut. 17:18,19).
The Scriptures were authoritative in the strictest sense of
the word, and totally normative for all matters. This is clear,
for example, in Joshua 1:8, where God says to Joshua, "this book
of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt
meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
according to all that is written therein. For then thou shalt
make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."
Indeed, the book of Joshua does demonstrate an intimate
familiarity with the Pentateuch, and we know that Joshua did keep
the law carefully, and encouraged the people of Israel to do so.
For example, in Joshua 8:34,35, it states that Joshua read to
them the entire book of the law.
As soon as the book of Joshua was written, it, also, became
incorporated into the "book of the law of God" (Joshua 24:26),
and the Hebrew Canon began to grow. Each succeeding book of the
Old Testament demonstrates an intimate familiarity with the
Scriptures that had preceded it, and recognizes them as totally
normative. There is, in fact, a heavy dependence throughout the
Old Testament, not only upon the law of Moses, but upon the other
prophets who upheld that law.
The Bible insists that the exile of Israel into Assyria and
of Judah into Babylon were directly caused by infractions of the
law of Moses. This is stated by prophets before, during, and
after the exile, and indicates that God does not take lightly the
breaking of His law.
The Hebrew Scriptures are considered normative not only for
the curses, but also for the blessings that are promised if the
law is not broken (Nehemiah 1:7-9).
According to II Kings 17:13, the authority of the law of
Moses is on an equal footing with the words of the prophets.
This equivalence is reiterated in Zechariah 7:12, Nehemiah 9:29,
30, and Daniel 9:6, where it is stated that the exile was a
result of the fact that the Jews did not keep the word of the
prophets, nor did they obey the law.
In Daniel 9:2, Daniel takes for granted that the book of
Jeremiah is of absolute authority. This is the case even though
less than 70 years had passed since Jeremiah had been written.
This situation was very similar to that of Joshua and Moses. As
soon as Moses had finished the Pentateuch, it was the word of God
to Joshua.
It becomes obvious, as one considers factors of this kind,
that the Old Testament claims for itself, not only that the words
of the prophets were preserved and considered to be equal in
authority with the law of Moses, but that both were considered to
be the words of Jehovah Himself.
_______________________________________
1Francis A. Schaeffer, L'Abri tape #17, "What the Bible Claims
for Itself," (Huemoz, Switzerland: L'Abri Fellowship Foundation,
n.d.).
CHRIST'S USE OF THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ assumed the absolute authority of the Old
Testament as God's word. Along these lines, Roger Nicole has
written:
At the very threshold of his public ministry, our Lord,
in his dramatic victory over Satan's threefold
onslaught, rested his whole defense on the authority of
three passages of Scripture. He quoted the Old
Testament in support of his teaching to the crowds; he
quoted it in his discussions with antagonistic Jews; he
quoted it in answer to questions both captious and
sincere; he quoted it in instructing the disciples who
would have readily accepted his teaching on his own
authority; he referred to it in his prayers, when alone
in the presence of the Father; he quoted it on the
cross, when his sufferings could easily have drawn his
attention elsewhere; he quoted it in his resurrection
glory, when any limitation, real or alleged, of the
days of his flesh was clearly superseded. Whatever may
be the differences between the pictures of Jesus drawn
by the four Gospels, they certainly agree in their
representation of our Lord's attitude toward the Old
Testament: one of constant use and of unquestioning
endorsement of its authority.1
Christ's approach to the Hebrew Scriptures was uniformly an
acceptance of its claim to divine authority. When he quoted from
it to establish anything, he considered the case closed, and that
was the end of the matter. In John 10:34, he quotes Psalm 82:6,
saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods?" In
this passage, he refers to the Psalms as the law, indicating that
he took for granted that the authority of the Psalms was on an
equal footing with that of the law of Moses. Note the element of
finality in this passage. Once He has cited this authority, the
discussion is over. In Matthew 12:3 he asks in wonder, "Have you
not read?", while in Matthew 22:29 Jesus said to the Sadducees,
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
These passages are indicative of the underlying attitude
that Christ had, that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John
10:35). A number of times He emphatically states that the
Scripture must be fulfilled. In Matthew 5:17,18, he says "Think
not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets." Here,
He puts together the law and the prophets, indicating that they
are equal in authority. After the resurrection, in Luke 24:25-
27, he states, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that
the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered
these things, and to enter into His glory? And beginning at
Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself." In the same chapter,
verses 44 and 46, Jesus says, "These are the words which I spoke
unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the
prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me." Here Jesus treats as
equal in authority the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, which
were the technical terms for the three parts of the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus treats the Old Testament in such a way as to assume
that their inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture.
In Matthew 22:45, the argument Jesus presents hinges on a single
word of the text, while in Matthew 22:32, his argument hangs on
the tense of a word.
Jesus felt free to juxtapose two entirely separate verses of
the Scriptures in Matthew 22:36-40, which states:
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?"
Jesus said unto him, "`Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind.' This is the first great commandment. And
the second is like unto it, `Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself.'"
The first of these quotations is from Deuteronomy 6:4,5, while
the other is from Leviticus 19:18. These two separate verses,
although from completely different sections of the Pentateuch,
are treated as equally authoritative. In fact, Christ quoted all
parts of the Scriptures in the same way: the law, the prophets,
and the writings. Moreover, He accepted without question the
historicity of everything in the Hebrew Bible. He accepted the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He took for granted the
trustworthiness of the accounts in the Bible of creation, of the
giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, of Noah's flood, of God's
covenant with Abraham, of Daniel's prophecy, of all of the
historical books, and of Jonah's episode of three days in a great
fish. In all cases, Jesus was very matter-of-fact about
accepting these things.2
In Luke 16:19-21, Jesus makes very clear the finality of the
authority of the Old Testament. Here he concludes that "if they
hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
though one rose from the dead" (v. 31). Here, he puts together
Moses and the prophets, and makes a very definite statement about
their final authority. He makes a similar statement in John
5:46,47: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:
for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how
shall ye believe my words?" Here, Jesus equates His word with
that of Moses. According to Him, the teaching of the Old
Testament is on a par with His own teaching.
_______________________________________
1Roger Nicole, "The New Testament Use of the Old," in Carl F. H.
Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1958), pp. 140-141.
2John W. Wenham, "Christ's View of Scripture," in Norman L.
Geisler, ed., Inerrancy, pp. 6-10, and Pierre Ch. Marcel, "Our
Lord's Use of Scripture," In Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Revelation
and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1958),
p. 133.
THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Many books and articles have been written on the use of the
Old Testament made by the New Testament writers.1 In the present
context, the discussion will be limited to an examination of how
the apostles and the other writers of the new Testament had the
same high view of the Old Testament as did Jesus and the authors
of the Old Testament themselves.
The apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 14:21, quotes from Isaiah
28:11 and refers to it as the law. Thus, according to his
methodology, whether a passage is from the Pentateuch or from
another portion of the Scriptures, it is equally binding as law.
Paul's idea of inspiration extends to the very words. This can
be clearly observed in Galatians 3:16, where he bases his
argument upon a single word in Genesis 12:7.
The authors of the New Testament referred to New Testament
history as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It is clear
from this that they considered Old Testament prophecy to be
authoritative. For example, Matthew 1:21-23 quotes Isaiah 7:14
as follows:
"And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name
Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their
sins." Now all this took place that what was spoken by
the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled,
saying, "Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and
shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name
Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."
Of course, this passage would be meaningless unless Matthew
really believed that the book of Isaiah had absolute authority as
Scripture. The New Testament continually refers to passages of
the Old Testament in this way. For example, John 12:37,38 refers
to Isaiah 53:1 as follows:
But though He had performed so many signs before them,
yet they were not believing in Him; that the word of
Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke,
"Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has
the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
Examples of a similar nature can be found on almost any page of
the New Testament.
Particularly illustrative of the reverence that the apostles
had for the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures is Acts 26:22-29,
in which Paul gives his defense to Festus and King Agrippa:
And so, having obtained help from God, I stand to this
day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing
but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take
place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by
reason of His resurrection from the dead He should be
the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people
and to the Gentiles.
Here, it is evident that the Prophets and Moses are completely
authoritative on matters that were to take place many generations
after they wrote and spoke, and their authority was taken for
granted, not only by Paul, but by Agrippa:
"King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know
that you do."
And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In short time you
will persuade me to become a Christian."
All that Paul is saying here rests upon the basis of Old
Testament authority. Concerning this passage, Francis A.
Schaeffer has said:
You have here, I think, one of the most striking things
I know in this regard. I've never seen much made of
it. But I feel [it is] overwhelmingly crucial. Here
on the basis of his knowledge of the Old Testament
prophets, and Paul appealing from them . . . the flow
of it is a tremendous thing. . . . And now he says,
"Why do you think it's surprising that there's a
resurrection? And furthermore, why do you think it's
surprising that God would say something to the
Gentiles? What do the Old Testament prophets say?"2
Here, both Paul and King Agrippa take for granted the absolute
authority of the Old Testament prophets.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, wherever Scripture
speaks, God is speaking. For example, Romans 9:17 says, "For the
Scripture says to Pharaoh, `For this very purpose I raised you
up, to demonstrate my power in you, and the My name might be
proclaimed throughout the whole earth.'" The citation in this
case is from Exodus 9:16, where it is God Himself who is
speaking. Similarly, we read in Galatians 3:8, "And the
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by
faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, `All
the nations shall be blessed in you.'" In this case, it is God
who did the preaching in Genesis 12:3, but He is so closely
identified with Scripture that there is no distinction in this
passage. In both of these examples, "the Scripture" was speaking
even before the first five books of the Bible were written: at
the time of Abraham and at the time of the Exodus from Egypt.
Moses later recorded these things in the Pentateuch, but God had
nevertheless spoken. "The Scripture" is thus the equivalent of
words spoken by God. Scripture carries the full authority of God
Himself.
The assumption of the New Testament that the Old Testament
is the word of God is also evident in the other formulae that the
New Testament writers used to introduce quotations from the
Hebrew Scriptures. Such statements as "it is written," "God
says," "He says," and "it says," all carry with them the
assumption that what is cited is of absolute authority as God's
word.
According to I Peter 1:10-12, the Old Testament prophets
prophesied by the Spirit of Christ, and therefore did not always
fully understand the words that they were given:
The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be
yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they
inquired what person or time was indicated by the
Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the
sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.
The prophets, therefore, were not expressing their own ideas.
Their writings were not the expression of religious genius;
rather, what they wrote was given to them by God.
_______________________________________
1S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., The Old Testament in the New: An Argument
for Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1980); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Uses of the
Old Testament in the New (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985); John S.
Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester,
Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988); Roger R. Nicole, "Patrick Fairbairn
and Biblical Hermeneutics as Related to the Quotations of the Old
Testament in the New," in Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus,
eds., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan, 1984), pp. 765-799; Edwin A. Blum, "The
Apostles' View of Scripture," in Norman L. Geisler, Inerrancy
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1979), pp. 39-53; Roger Nicole,
"New Testament Use of the Old Testament," in Carl F. H. Henry,
ed., Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1958), pp. 135-151.
2Francis A. Schaeffer, L'Abri tape #17, "What the Bible Claims
for Itself" (Huemoz, Switzerland: L'Abri Fellowship Foundation,
n.d.). THE NEW TESTAMENT'S VIEW OF ITSELF
The New Testament writers recognized their own writings as
Scripture. Paul, in II Corinthians 3:5,6 states that his
competency comes from God. In fact, according to Paul, the very
words that he used were taught by the Spirit:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human
wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing
spiritual truths in spiritual words.
Paul goes so far as to say that, even if angels preached
something contrary to what he was preaching, they would be
subject to eternal condemnation (Galatians 1:7,8).
Paul also stated that the instructions that he gave to the
Thessalonians were given by the authority of the Lord Jesus
(I Thess. 4:2), and that they were to stay away from those who
did not live according to the teachings that they received from
him and his associates (II Thess. 3:6). Moreover, in
I Corinthians 14:37, Paul says specifically that what he is
writing is the Lord's command.
In I Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 and
Luke 10:7 on an equal basis as though both are Scripture. This
would indicate that in his next epistle to Timothy, Paul is
referring both to the Old Testament and also to those portions of
the New Testament that were then in existence when he states:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correction and training in
righteousness (II Timothy 3:16).
II Peter 3:15,16 specifically states that Paul's epistles
are Scriptures:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation,
just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the
wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in
all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contain some things that are hard to
understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,
as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction.
It is clear, therefore, that earlier in the same epistle
(II Peter 1:20,21), the word "Scripture" refers to both the Old
and New Testaments:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of
Scripture came about by the prophet's own
interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in
the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit.
PROBLEMS WITH THE DENIAL OF THE BIBLE'S CLAIMS FOR ITSELF
As we have already seen, if we reject the claim of the Bible
to historical accuracy, then we are beset with an imposing set of
difficulties arising from the interpenetration of Biblical
history with secular history, both in the past and in the
present. History does not take place in a vacuum. The Bible
claims that its accounts are not legendary. If this claim is
rejected, then one must find some way of explaining the
inexplicable. If the Bible is legend, then one must explain the
existence of a body of literature which, although falsified,
corresponds, down to its minutest details, to all that is known
about the history with which it claims to be contemporaneous, and
which, if it had not taken place, leaves unexplained the myriad
of effects that have ostensibly occurred as a result of the
events that it describes.
If we accept the Bible's claim to historical accuracy but
reject its claim to be, in its entirety, the very words of God,
we are still beset with very serious difficulties. If we accept
as accurate the events recorded in the Bible, then we are forced
to accept its claim to be the very words of God, because many of
those events are descriptions of the very process by which God
inspired the Scriptures.
The very principle which forces us to accept all of the
events recorded in the Bible as historically accurate also forces
us to accept the Biblical doctrine of inspiration. As we have
seen, we cannot escape the historicity, even of the miracles
recorded in the Bible. They are too closely woven into the
fabric of history. Yet this is as true for the miracle of
Biblical inspiration as it is for everything else recorded in the
Bible. If we reject the Bible's claim to be the written record
of the words of God, there is too much left for us to explain for
which there is no adequate explanation, other than that which is
given to us in the Scriptures themselves. For those of us who
have seriously pondered this question, it is evident that is
would take far greater faith to reject the Biblical claims than
to accept them. Too may difficult questions arise if we do not
take the Bible at face value. To much is left unanswered.
If we do not accept the Biblical view of its own origin, we
must come up with an alternative explanation as to the origin of
the Bible. Such an explanation would have to take into account
the fact that all of the authors of the Bible claimed this divine
inspiration, not only for themselves, but for all of the Biblical
authors who had written before them. Could they perhaps have
been lying, or might they have been deceived? If so, can we take
anything they have said seriously? If not, how are we to explain
what is? If they were lying, could that be consistent with what
is manifestly the case with respect to their character? If they
were deceived, then what criteria are acceptable for the
determination of truth? Can we be sure we are not deceived
ourselves? How can we be? Can there be such a thing as truth at
all?
It is certainly impossible to accept the Scriptures as
authoritative for some purposes, but then to reject the claims of
those Scriptures concerning themselves. If the Scriptures are
suspect in their repeated claims for themselves, then on what
basis can it be said that they have integrity on any other
matter? If we are going to say that mankind has any basis for
optimism, and if we base this statement upon the fact that we
have the Judaeo-Christian Bible, then if we are going to have any
integrity at all, we will have to accept the claims that the
Bible consistently makes for itself. To do otherwise is do
violence to the integrity of the foundation for that optimism and
to throw the entire matter into serious question.
VIEWS OF THE BIBLE THROUGHOUT HISTORY
B. B. Warfield has observed that "the church has always
believed her Scriptures to be the book of God, of which God was
in such a sense the author that every one of its affirmations of
whatever kind is to be esteemed as the utterance of God, of
infallible truth and authority."1 Although Warfield's
observation has been contested,2 it is evident from the
literature of the Christian Church from the time of the Apostolic
Fathers onward, that the Church has always considered the Bible
to be trustworthy in its affirmations about itself.3
The writings of the Apostolic Fathers treat the Scriptures
in the same way that the Scriptures treat themselves. The
phrases that they use to introduce quotations from the Bible
indicate an implicit recognition of the Bible's absolute
authority in all matters. In his first epistle to the
Corinthians, for example, Clement of Rome wrote:
The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy
Spirit spake concerning repentance. Yea and the Master
of the universe Himself spake concerning repentance
with an oath, "For, as I live, saith the Lord, I desire
not the death of the sinner, so much as his
repentance," and He added also a merciful judgment:
"Repent ye, O house of Israel. . . ." And in another
place He saith on this wise, "Wash, be ye
clean. . . ."4
Throughout his epistle, Clement continually introduces the
Scriptures as God's words, with such formulas as "For He saith,"
"God said unto him," "And again He saith," "For the Holy Ghost
saith," "For it is written," "For the Scripture saith," and "as
it is written." In I Clement 53, "the sacred Scriptures" are
equated with "the oracles of God."
Similar formulas are used in the other writings of the
Apostolic Fathers to introduce quotations from all parts of the
Bible, whether from the Hebrew Scriptures or from the New
Testament. In II Clement 2, "He said" is used three times to
introduce Old Testament Scriptures; then the words of Jesus are
given equal authority: "Again another scriptures saith, 'I came
not to call the righteous, but sinners.'" In II Clement 3, we
see that, where Isaiah speaks in the Scriptures, God speaks: "Now
He saith also in Isaiah, 'This people honoreth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me.'"
In the Epistle of Barnabas 2, it is clear that, where the
prophets speak, God speaks: "For He hath made manifest to us by
all the prophets . . . saying at one time, 'What to Me is the
multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord?'" Other formulas
used by Barnabas to introduce quotations from the Bible include
"And He saith again unto them," "Thus then speaketh He to us,"
"He speaketh again therefore to them concerning these things,"
"But unto us He saith," "For the Scripture saith," and "The Lord
saith in the prophet."
Of course, the assumption of the finality of the Scriptures
in settling all matters continued throughout the history of the
Church, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers onward. Irenaeus,
for example, constantly quoted from the Scriptures as the final
authority in his five books Against Heresies.
A helpful collection of quotations illustrating the high
view of Scripture held during all periods of the history of the
Church can be found in Norman L. Geisler's book, Decide For
Yourself: How History Views the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan, 1982).
__________________________________
1Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible
(Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1948), p. 112.
2Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation
of the Bible: An historical Approach (New York: Harper and Row,
1979).
3See, for example, John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A
Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
4I Clement 8.
THE BIBLE: IS IT FACTUALLY TRUE, OR MERELY RELIGIOUSLY TRUE?
Some people attempt to distinguish between factual and
religious truth in the Bible. For many of them, religious
matters, or matters of "faith and practice," are considered
infallible, while other matters are subject to error. However,
this approach is inconsistent with that taken by the Scriptures
themselves. The Biblical authors repeatedly indicated, both
implicitly and explicitly, that they considered all of what they
were writing, and all of what their predecessors had written, to
be both factually true and given by God. If we do not remain
faithful to these Biblical assumptions with respect to the
Scriptures, why should we remain faithful to the Biblical
assumptions with respect to anything else?
The Bible claims that the miracles recorded within it really
happened. If we reject this Biblical claim, then we reject the
integrity of the Bible. If we do not accept the miracles, then
the Bible cannot be accepted as trustworthy, because it
consistently attests to these miracles.
If we say that it is trustworthy only with regard to
religious truth, we have a problem, because we are saying that
its continual claims about itself and about history are false.
Why trust it with respect to religion if it cannot be trusted in
these repeated assertions? Why trust that which is either
falsified or unreliable? If the Bible cannot be trusted in its
repeated assertions, and if its writers were lying or deceived
about non-religious matters, then what reason do we have to think
that they were not lying or deceived with respect to religious
matters?
Can we really even distinguish between "religious" and "non-
religious" content in the Bible, and attempt to say that the
former is infallible while the latter is not? The "religious
truths" and other factual truths are hopelessly intertwined in
the Bible. It is just as impossible to separate the "religious"
from the "non-religious" statements in the Bible as it is to
separate its history from "legend."
The historical statements in the Bible have a direct bearing
upon faith and practice. For example, the Song of Moses was sung
traditionally by the people of Israel. This was a matter of
"faith and practice," but it was also a commemoration of
historical events. If those events did not in fact occur, the
singing of the song would have been meaningless. God acts in
history. His trustworthiness in times past reinforces our trust
in His trustworthiness today. His faithfulness in the past
provides us with confidence that He will be faithful with us. If
the Bible is not entirely trustworthy with respect to the
historical events recorded within it, then it cannot be an
"infallible rule of faith and practice."
Who would ever take seriously a friend's assertion that he
would always remain faithful to us, if this assertion were based
upon a written record of his acts of faithfulness, which,
however, had been falsified?
DOES THE BIBLE EMPLOY CULTURAL ACCOMMODATION?
Many theologians suggest that whatever truth may be found in
the Bible is relative to the world view of the culture in which
it was written. According to them, God has accommodated himself
to the mistaken notions of the ancient Near East in His
communication to us through the Bible. This viewpoint was never
widely held until the rise of liberal theology in the eighteenth
century,1 and assumes that God either cannot or does not
communicate with us in such a way as to give us truth
unencumbered with the false ideas of the people whom he inspired.
The theory of cultural accommodation is therefore the result of
an antisupernaturalistic bias which is incompatible with the
Bible's treatment of itself.
Along these lines, J. Robertson McQuilkin has written:
My problem with the approach is simply that I find it
nowhere enunciated in the Bible. Where in Scripture
are we told that the specific declarations of God's
truth and God's will for men are not normative, but
only the principles that lie behind them?2
As McQuilkin observes, to set aside a particular Biblical
teaching in such a way as to allow only the underlying principle
to be normative "is to impose an extra-biblical notion and
violate the authority of Scripture."3 He continues as follows:
If Scripture itself does not identify which teaching is
founded upon the nature of God or the ordinances of
creation and which teaching is purely culturally based,
on what grounds do I make such a distinction? It seems
to me that those grounds become my authority.4
Because the Bible claims to be the written record of the
words of God, we cannot assume that it is "culture bound" without
dismissing its claims. If we dismiss its claims, but continue to
look to it as our authority, we are no longer treating it with
integrity, because, as we have seen, it is insistent in its
assertion that those who do not accept its claims are in
rebellion against God.
__________________________________
1Paul D. Feinberg, "A Response to Adequacy of Language and
Accommodation," in Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, eds.,
Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 388.
2J. Robertson McQuilkin, "Normativeness in Scripture," in Earl D.
Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, eds., Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and
the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House,
1984), p. 227.
3Ibid., p. 228.
4Ibid.
BIBLICAL CRITICISM
C. S. Lewis has written that, "when you turn from the New
Testament to modern scholars, remember that you go among them as
a sheep among wolves. Naturalistic assumptions, beggings of the
question . . . will meet you on every side--even from the pens of
clergymen. . . . In using the books of such people you must
therefore be continually on guard. You must develop a nose like
a bloodhound for those steps in the argument which depend not on
historical and linguistic knowledge but on the concealed
assumption that miracles are impossible, improbable, or
improper."1
Of course, C. S. Lewis would have agreed that these comments
could equally be applied to scholars of the Old Testament, most
of whom affirm the Documentary hypothesis for the authorship of
the Pentateuch, the existence of a "Deutero-Isaiah," and a late
date for the authorship of Daniel.
According to the Documentary hypothesis, the Biblical claims
for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are false. Rather,
the first five books of the Bible are made up of many fragments
by different authors. The earliest, the Jahwist (J), was an
unknown writer who lived in the Southern Kingdom of Judah in
about 850 B.C., either 440 or 600 years after the time of Moses,
depending upon one's dating of the Exodus. The Elohist (E) was
supposed to have been an unknown writer in the Northern Kingdom
of Israel who lived around 750 B.C. The writings of J and E were
combined a hundred years later by an unknown redactor. Then,
according to this hypothesis, in 621 B.C., the Deuteronomic
writer (D) composed the book of Deuteronomy during the reforms of
King Josiah. Finally, in about 570 B.C., the Priestly writer (P)
wrote various sections of the Pentateuch concerned with
genealogical lists and the details of the sacrificial system.
These views, which were advocated by Julius Wellhausen,
gained a strong foothold in the field of Biblical studies during
the twentieth century, despite the fact that both the Pentateuch
and many other parts of the Bible specifically state that Moses
wrote the Pentateuch. However, there is abundant evidence
disconfirming the Documentary hypothesis.2 For example, the
Jewish Old Testament scholar Cyrus H. Gordon has assembled
impressive evidence disconfirming Welhausen's theories. He
wrote:
My conservative critics, some of whom are on the
faculties of Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish
seminaries, find fault not because my writings run
counter to any particular religious tenet, but because
I am not devoted to JEDP: the badge of
interconfessional academic respectability. . . .
A sane approach to scriptural (or any other)
literature requires that we take it on its own terms,
and not force it into an alien system.
One of the commonest grounds for positing
differences of authorship are the repetitions, with
variants, in the Bible. But such repetitions are
typical of ancient Near East literature: Babylonian,
Ugaritic, and even Greek. . . .
One of the fragile cornerstones of the JEDP
hypothesis is the notion that the mention of "Jehovah"
(actually "Yahweh") typifies a J document, while
"Elohim" typifies an E document. A conflation of J and
E sources into JE is supposed to account for the
compound name Yahweh-Elohim. All this is admirably
logical and for years I never questioned it. But my
Ugaritic studies destroyed this kind of logic with
relevant facts.3
Another very common notion in the field of Old Testament
studies is that Isaiah was written by more than one author.
However, there is no historical or textual evidence for this
theory. According to higher critics, "Deutero-Isaiah" (chapters
40-66 of the book of Isaiah) was written after the Babylonian
exile (or after 520 B.C.) rather than the time of the prophet
Isaiah (about 700 B.C.). This would explain, for example, the
mention of King Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1, as the one whose
decree was to bring an end to the Babylonian captivity. It
should be noted, however, that in this passage, Isaiah
specifically stated that it was because of the fulfillment of
this predictive prophecy that people would know that he was
speaking by inspiration from God: "So that you may know that I am
the Lord, the God of Israel, who calls you by name" (Isaiah
45:3).
If one takes the position that miracles are impossible, then
one must find explanations of this kind against all evidence to
the contrary.4 Among the Dead Sea Scrolls was a complete scroll
of Isaiah which contained no indication of any break between
Isaiah 39 and Isaiah 40. Despite the lack of textual or
historical evidence of any kind, literary critics continue to
affirm the validity of the hypothesis of a second Isaiah, based
upon perceived differences in theme and subject matter, language
and style, and theological ideas. However, there are at least
forty phrases common to both of these sections of Isaiah. There
are also many similarities of theme, style, subject matter, and
theology.5 Isaiah 40-66 shows little knowledge of Babylonian
geography, but great familiarity with that of Palestine, and the
author of "Duetero-Isaiah" assumes that the cities of Judah are
still standing, which would not have been the case if the author
were writing during or just after the Babylonian captivity.
Also, many of the same evils which prevailed in the time of the
eighth-century Isaiah were still prevalent during the generation
of "second Isaiah."
Concerning higher criticism of the New Testament, C. S.
Lewis has written:
The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly
the work of divines engaged in New Testament criticism.
The authority of experts in that discipline is the
authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up
a huge mass of beliefs shared in common by the early
Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers,
and even the nineteenth century,6
Lewis observed that New Testament critics base many of their
conclusions upon the assumption that miracles do not occur.7 It
follows that if this assumption is false, the results need not be
taken seriously.
C. S. Lewis also observed that literary critics had come to
many unfounded conclusions about the works that he himself had
written, and that therefore the judgments of literary critics
concerning the New Testament simply cannot be taken seriously:
All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the
genesis of the texts it studies; what vanished
documents each author used, when and where he wrote,
with what purposes, under what influences--the whole
Sitz im Leben of the text. This is done with immense
erudition and great ingenuity. And at first sight it
is very convincing. I think I should be convinced by
it myself, but that I carry about with me a charm--the
herb moly--against it. You must excuse me if I now
speak for a while of myself. . . .
What forearms me against all these Reconstructions
is the fact that I have seen it all from the other end
of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstructing
the genesis of my own books in just this way. . . .
Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash
you off such histories with great confidence; will tell
you what public events had directed the author's mind
to this or that, what other authors had influenced him,
what his over-all intention was, what sort of audience
he principally addressed, why--and when--he did
everything. . . .
My impression is that in the whole of my
experience not one of these guesses has on any one
point been right; that the method shows a record of 100
per cent failure.8
__________________________________
1C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1960), pp. 164-165.
2See, for example, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old
Testament Introduction, revised ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974),
pp. 91-176.
3Cyrus H. Gordon, "Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit,"
Christianity Today, November 23, 1959, in Frank E. Gaebelein,
ed., A Christianity Today Reader (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H.
Revell Co., 1968), pp. 91, 92, 94, 95.
4See, for example, Oswald T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972),
and E. J. Young, Who Wrote Isaiah? (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1958).
5Archer, pp. 332-351.
6C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), p. 153.
7Ibid., p. 158.
8Ibid., pp. 159-160.
THE HISTORY OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM
A careful study of the history of Biblical Criticism will
demonstrate that this discipline has its roots in attempts to
overthrow the authority of the Bible in the late sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, particularly in France, where the
libertines challenged the Christian consensus that prevailed
almost universally in Europe at that time.1 For example, Baruch
Spinoza (1632-1677), in his Tractatus-theologico-politicus
(1670), sought to find contradictions in the Pentateuch in order
to undermine the prevailing viewpoint of the Bible as infallible.
He also stated that the Pentateuch could not have been written by
Moses because it refers to him in the third person, and it
records his own death. These arguments are still used by those
who adhere to the Documentary hypothesis, and had their origin in
Spinoza's work.
Spinoza and others began asserting that reason, not
revelation, is the principal criterion to be used in the
determination of truth, and that reason should therefore be used
to sift what was truthful out of the Bible.
Another early father of Biblical criticism was Hugo Grotius,
who attempted to examine the Biblical documents in their
appropriate historical contexts in the light of "reason," and to
conjecture about their emendation, with very little concern for
the Biblical claims themselves. In the latter portion of the
seventeenth century, Jean LeClerc used these ideas for his more
radical criticism of the Biblical texts. LeClerc stated that,
except for the prophetical writings of the Bible and the
teachings of Christ, the Bible consisted of historical accounts
or moral lessons, but were not inspired by God. The Gospels, for
example, although not inspired, were reliable historical
documents. These ideas became very prevalent during the
Enlightenment and were the foundation upon which modern higher
Biblical criticism was built. Yet, as we have seen, they are
incompatible with the claims of the Scriptures themselves.
__________________________________
1John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Corporation, 1982), pp. 85-86.
THE BIBLE AND THE RULES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE
As we have seen, many critics of the authenticity of
documents included within the Old and New Testaments base their
contentions upon principles of literary criticism. The use of
modern higher Biblical criticism, employing the methods of
literary criticism in establishing date and authorship of
canonical and extra-canonical documents, is highly questionable.
Literary criticism as a discipline is highly speculative and is
not acceptable as evidence in a court of law. In 1930, for
example,1 a Canadian citizen, Miss Florence Deeks, submitted a
book for publication, entitled The Web, to Macmillan Co. in
Canada. Although Miss Deeks' book, which was an outline of
history, was never published, shortly thereafter H. G. Wells
published his Outline of History through Macmillan Co. in
England. Miss Deeks filed a lawsuit against H. G. Wells for
plagiarism, asking $500,000 damages. The plaintiff's defense was
made by the literary critic Professor Erwin, who found by the
principles of literary criticism that the Outline of History that
H. G. Wells had published could not possibly have been written
independently, and that either it borrowed heavily from Miss
Deeks' work, or both works were derived from a common third
source. This conclusion was based upon the existence of numerous
passages in both works which, although not identical, were
similar to a certain extent in literary structure. According to
the Ontario Law Reports of 1931, the Honorable Mr. Justice Raney
ruled that evidence based upon literary criticism alone was
unacceptable.2 Miss Deeks appealed her case, and the Honorable
Justice Riddle of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
Ontario upheld Raney's decision. Still dissatisfied, Miss
Florence Deeks appealed to the Lords of the Privy council,
highest tribunal of justice and the court of last resorts in the
British Empire. The hearing lasted from October 1, 1932 until
November 3, 1932, at which time, Lord Atkin,3 presiding justice,
upheld the decisions of the other two courts, stating that
evidence presented on the basis of literary criticism is
inadmissible in a court of law. This case is mentioned in Irwin
H. Linton's book, A Lawyer Examine the Bible (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1943), pp. 109-110.4
In The Testimony of the Evangelists, Dr. Simon Greenleaf of
Harvard Law School applies the laws of legal evidence to the New
Testament accounts. The first rule of municipal law to which he
alludes is a follows:
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the
proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face
no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be
genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden
of proving it to be otherwise.5
He demonstrates the applicability of this rule to the New
Testament documents, and notes that there is no pretense that
they were engraved on plates of gold and discovered in a cave,
nor that they were brought from heaven by angels, but that they
are the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they
respectively bear, made public at the time they were written.
The second rule that he cites is as follows:
In matters of public and general interest, all persons
must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle
that individuals are presumed to be conversant with
their own affairs.6
According to this rule, we must allow that in copying
manuscripts, the Christians did not corrupt the text, since they
must be presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Now
that we have fragments of manuscripts from as early as A.D. 130,
we have excellent evidence that such a presumption is indeed
justified.
The other rules of legal evidence are as follows:
In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper
inquiry is not whether it is possible that the
testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient
probability that it is true.7
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is
established by competent and satisfactory evidence.8
In the absence of circumstances which generate
suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible,
until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching
his credibility lying upon the objector.9
The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends
upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability;
thirdly, their number and the consistency of their
testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony
with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their
testimony with collateral circumstances.10
Greenleaf discusses each of these rules in depth in relation to
the New Testament. Concerning the fifth point in the last of
these rules, he writes:
After a witness is dead, and his moral character is
forgotten, we can ascertain it only by a close
inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with
each other, and with contemporary accounts and
collateral facts. This test is much more accurate than
may at first be supposed. Every event which actually
transpires, has its appropriate relation and place in
the vast complication of circumstances, of which the
affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the
events which have preceded it, is intimately connected
with all others which occur at the same time and place,
and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn
gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all
this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming
discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact,
which really happened, tallies exactly with every other
contemporaneous incident related to it in the remotest
degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent
a story, which, if closely compared with the actual
occurrences of the same time and place, may not be
shown to be false.11
__________________________________
1Details of this case are reported in a tape by Francis A.
Schaeffer entitled, "Five problems with those who deny the
Bible's evaluation concerning itself." This L'Abri Tape (no. 16)
is available from: L'Abri Fellowship Foundation, Chalet Les
Melezes, 1861 Huemoz, Switzerland.
2Although evidence based upon literary criticism alone is
inadmissible in a court of law, it is presumed that a document is
genuine in its entirety until (admissible) evidence can be
provided to the contrary. Just as it is the case (in order to
insure that no innocent suspect is convicted of a crime) that the
accused is considered innocent until it can be proven on the
basis of noncircumstantial evidence that he is guilty, so it is
reasonable to require (in order to inure that no unjustifiable
claims be made about the text) that the text be considered
genuine in its entirety until historical or archaeological
evidence is found to the contrary. Literary-critical methods,
however, are highly speculative and lack uniformity in their
results.
Therefore, in a court of law, the burden of proof would rest
upon the one who has challenged the authenticity of the document.
However, there are many who would find it very difficult to
accept the authenticity of the New Testament, and who would
desire that the burden of proof be left to the one who believes
the New Testament to be genuine. For this reason, it is helpful
to examine the indications of the authenticity of the New
Testament from a literary point of view.
3Lord Atkin was one of the seven Lords of Appeal in Ordinary of
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was the
supreme judicial authority of the British Empire. He was
appointed in 1928. The office is held for life, so he remained
until his death in 1944 at the age of 76 (Whitaker's Almanac,
1932, p. 246; 1944, p. 405; 1945, p. 405).
4The New York Times carried articles on this case on September
28, 1930 (section II, p. 1, col. 3), August 27, 1931 (p. 18, col.
3), November 1, 1932 (p. 19, col. 5), November 2, 1932 (p. 17,
col. 2), and November 4, 1932 (p. 22, col. 3).
5Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four
Evangelists (London: A. Maxwell & Son, 1847), p. 7.
6Ibid., p. 8.
7Ibid., p. 21.
8Ibid.
9Ibid., p. 22.
10Ibid., p. 25.
11Ibid.
THE BASIS FOR AUTHORITY: REASON AND OBSERVATION, OR GOD'S WORD
In seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, a great deal
of emphasis began to be placed upon reason as the primary
criterion to be used in the determination of truth. Prior to
this time, revelation, as given to us in the Scriptures, was
considered to be the means by which truth was determined.
Especially during the time of the Enlightenment, there was a
widespread denial of the need for the grace of God in guiding
human thought, and a dismissal of revelation, which came to be
considered inconsequential in the acquisition of knowledge. It
was not necessary for God to give revelation, since, through
reason, human beings could discover what was true. Rationalism
of this kind characterized the approach of such people as Rene
Descartes (1596-1650), Baruch Spinoza (1632-77), G. W. Liebniz
(1646-1716), and Blaise Pascal (1623-62), all of whom were
extremely influential in spreading this methodology just prior to
the Enlightenment.
Empiricism (or the belief in the primacy of either
experience or observation in determining truth) was the approach
taken by John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753), and
David Hume (1711-76). Here again, the source of knowledge is not
revelation, but human experience. The Empiricists were also very
influential in spreading their ideas.
One of the central questions of philosophy is the
epistemological question: how do we know what is true? Is it by
the use of reason unaided by revelation that we can make a
determination of truth? Is it by observation, or experience? Or
is it by revelation from God? If it is by revelation, then we
are taking a theocentric approach. If it is by human reason or
human experience, then, our approach is anthropocentric or
humanistic. Thus, by definition, humanism entails the denial of
revelation for the determination of truth.
The Reformers of the sixteenth century took for granted the
primacy of God's word in the determination of truth. Martin
Luther, for example, dismissed the authority of Aristotle in
favor of Biblical revelation.1 He adhered to the Augustinian
epistemology, which he described as follows:
Rather, as Augustine says elsewhere, the mind is so
laid hold of by the truth itself, that, by virtue of
that truth, it is able to reach certainty in any
judgment. Nevertheless, the mind is unable to judge
the truth as such, although it is compelled to say,
when entirely confident, This is true. For example,
the mind declares with infallible assurance that three
and seven make ten, and yet it cannot adduce any reason
why that is true, although it cannot deny its truth.
The fact is that, rather than being itself the judge,
the mind has been taken captive, and has accepted a
verdict pronounced by the Truth herself sitting on the
tribunal. Similarly by the illumination of the Spirit,
when doctrines come up for decision and approval, the
church possesses a "sense" whose presence is certain,
though it cannot be proved.2
Luther affirmed the Augustinian epistemology, according to which
"the mind is unable to judge the truth," unless assisted by God,
through His word and His Spirit. This viewpoint was overthrown
during the time of the Enlightenment, when such ideas were
increasingly relegated to the status of superstition.
If the Biblical claims are valid, then the Bible's authority
must reign supreme if there are apparent conflicts between its
statements and that which has been determined on the basis of
reason, experience, or observation.
__________________________________
1Martin Luther, The Pagan Servitude of the Church, in John
Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1961), pp. 268-269.
2Ibid., p. 341.
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION
[See excerpts from Richard M. Riss, The Evidence for the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany
Fellowship, 1977).]
THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST
According to the New Testament accounts, Jesus, during His
ministry, often predicted that He would be raised from the dead
(see John 10:17; Luke 9:22, 11:29,30, 16:31, 18:33; Mark 8:31,
9:9, 9:31, 10:34, 14:28; Matt. 16:4, 16:21, 17:9, 17:23, 20:19,
26:32, 27:63). He offered His future resurrection as validation
for His extensive claims concerning Himself. He claimed to have
authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:20,21,24), and to be Teacher
and Lord (John 13:13). He claimed that apart from Himself, one
could do nothing (John 15:5). He said, "I am the resurrection
and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he
live" (John 11:25). He claimed that He would come again at the
close of the age (Mark 13:26). He claimed to be the Messiah
prophesied in the Old Testament (see John 1:49-51 and 4:26). He
claimed to be equal with God (John 5:18). This is not surprising
since at least seven Old Testament passages equate the coming
Messiah with God (Ps. 45:6,7; Isa. 9:6, 7:14; Micah 1:3; Zech.
14;9; Isa. 44:6 compared to Job 19:25, Mal. 3:1). For example,
in Isaiah 9:6 we find the following prophecy concerning the
Messiah to come: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is
given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name
will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace" (italics added).
These claims of Christ concerning Himself are quite
shocking. C. S. Lewis has written:
Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there
suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He
was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has
always existed. He says He is coming to judge the
world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear.
Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say
that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would
be nothing very odd about. But this man, since He was
a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their
language, meant the Being outside the world Who had
made it and was infinitely different from anything
else. And when you have grasped that, you will see
that what this man said was, quite simply, the most
shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human
lips.1
C. S. Lewis reminds us that one of the most shocking aspects of
Christ's claims is His claim to forgive sins. He writes of this:
Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so
preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how
a man forgives offences against Himself. You tread on
my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I
forgive you. But what should we make of a man, Himself
unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he
forgave you for treading on other men's toes and
stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the
kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet
this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins
were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the
other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured.
He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party
chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all
offences. This makes sense only if He really was the
God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in
every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God,
these words would imply what I can only regard as a
silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character
in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing)
even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not
usually get the impression of silliness and conceit.
Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that
He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not
noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and
meekness are the very last characteristics we could
attribute to some of His sayings.2
__________________________________
1C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Co., 1943),
pp. 54-55.
2Ibid., p. 55. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST
Of course, Jesus is not the only one who attests to His
divinity. All of the Scriptures attest to it. In fact, the
Hebrew prophets expected the Messiah to be God. Isaiah 9:6 says:
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and
the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name
will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 7:14 is as follows:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign.
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel, God with us.
In fact, the Hebrew prophets expected the Lord their God to
walk the earth:
For behold, the Lord is coming forth out of his place,
and will come down and tread upon the high places of
the earth" (Micah 1:3).
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will
stand upon the earth" (Job 19:25).
Is Job's redeemer God? The answer is in Isaiah 44:6:
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his
Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the first and I am
the last; besides me there is no god."
In Revelation 1:17,18 we read:
I am the first and the last, and the living one; I
died, and behold I am alive for evermore.
The speaker indicates that he is Jesus by saying that he died,
and behold is alive forevermore. At the same time, He claims to
be "the first and the last," indicating that he is God, for the
speaker was not ignorant of Isaiah 44:6 quoted above, nor was He
ignorant of similar verses, including Isaiah 41:4 and 48:12. The
speaker emphasizes this identity by reiterating his assertion in
Revelation 2:8, which says, "The words of the first and the last,
who died and came to life." Also see Revelation 1:8, 22:13, and
21:6.
That Jesus is God may also be realized when one remembers
that one must worship God alone, yet at the same time we are to
worship Jesus. Revelation 22:8,9 says:
I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when
I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the
feet of the angel who showed them to me; but he said to
me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with
you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who
keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Yet Jesus did not, in the same way, prevent people from
worshipping Him:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the
mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when
they saw Him they worshipped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew
28:16,17,18).
See also Luke 5:8, Luke 17:15,16, John 9:38, and Matthew 14:33,
which are four other cases in which people worshipped Jesus. Yet
in none of these is there any record that Jesus prevented this.
We are supposed to worship Jesus. See Philippians 2:9-11,
Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:12-14 and Revelation 22:3.
When Thomas worshipped Jesus he called Him God, yet Jesus
did not contradict Him:
Thomas answered Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said
to Him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
(John 20:28,29).
Here, Jesus encouraged Thomas to worship Him and call Him God.
It was Jesus who had said:
You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall
you serve (Luke 4:8).
Certainly, if Jesus were not God, he would have done as
Peter did in Acts 10:25,26:
When Peter entered, Cornelius met Him and fell down at
his feet and worshipped Him. but Peter lifted Him up,
saying, "Stand up; I too am a man!"
Another indication that Jesus is God is that the world was
created through Jesus:
For in Him all things were created, in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or authorities--all things
were created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16).
See also Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 11:3, I Corinthians 8:6, Proverbs
8:29,30, John 1:3,10, and II Peter 3:5 (Compared to John 1:1,14).
Many verses in the New Testament assert the divinity of
Christ:
For in Him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily
(Colossians 2:9).
Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1,14).
I and the Father are one (John 10:30).
He who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).
But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever" (Hebrews 1:8).
And killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the
dead. To this we are witnesses (Acts 3:15).
Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who
can forgive sins but God alone? (Mark 2:7).
Fear seized them all; and they glorified God, saying,
"A great prophet has arisen among us!" and "God visited
His people!" (Luke 7:16).
And all were astonished at the majesty of God (Luke
9:43).
Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory
of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. To
those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with
ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ (II Peter 1:1).
According to I John 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness
at all." Yet, "In Him was life, and the life was the light of
men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
overcome it." (John 1:4,5).
Peter, in his epistles, makes no distinction between the
Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ:
They inquired what person or time was indicated by the
Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the
sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory (I Peter
1:11); No prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (II Peter
1:21).
Consider the following two verses:
Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus,
direct our way to you (I Thessalonians 3:11); Now may
our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, who
loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope
through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them
in every good work and word (II Thessalonians 2:16,17).
The verbs which are underlined, direct and comfort, are in the
third person singular in the original Greek text. This
establishes an identity between "our God and Father Himself" and
"our Lord Jesus" in I Thessalonians 3:11, as well as an identity
between "our Lord Jesus Christ Himself" and "God our Father" in
II Thessalonians 2:16,17. Had this identity not existed, it
would have been necessary to use the third person plural in both
cases.
At one point, Jesus asserted His divinity by reference to
his being good in a perfect sense:
And Jesus said to Him, "Why do you call me good? No
one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19).
The people were then left with either denying that he was good,
which they could not do, or assenting to his divinity.
Jesus said many things that indicated his divinity, and the
people realized that he was making this claim. This is why they
accused Him of blasphemy for saying these things. See Mark
14:60-64, Mark 2:7, Luke 5:20-22, John 10:33, and John 5:18,
which says:
This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill Him,
because he not only broke the sabbath but also called
God his Father, making Himself equal with god.
That Jesus and God are equal does not contradict that Jesus
was a man. He was both.
PROBLEMS WITH THE DENIAL OF CHRIST'S CLAIMS
In discussing his apologetic method, C. S. Lewis once stated
that he usually found the aut Deus aut malus homo quite useful in
demonstrating the validity of Christ's claims.1 The argument,
which is summed up in this Latin phrase ("Either God or a bad
man"), points out that, if Christ's claims were false, then he
could not have been a good man, since he thought of Himself as
God. This "liar, lunatic, or Lord" argument was summarized by
Lewis in one of his most widely quoted passages:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really
foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm
ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I
don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one
thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and
said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great
moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a
level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or
else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your
choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God:
or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him
up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a
demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has
not left that open to us. He did not intend to.2
Elsewhere, C. S. Lewis has stated that if Christ's claims for
Himself are not true, then they are "those of a megalomaniac,
compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men."
He continued:
There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in
other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked
Him, "Are you the son of Bramah?" he would have said,
"My son, you are still in the vale of illusion." If
you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you Zeus?" he
would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed
and asked, "are you Allah?" he would first have rent
his clothes and then cut you head off. If you had
asked Confucius, "Are you Heaven?", I think he would
have probably replied, "Remarks which are not in
accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of
a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of
the question.3
Benjamin Franklin, who was a Deist who did not believe in
the divinity of Christ, wrote in his Resolution on Humility that
one should "Imitate Jesus and Socrates." It is interesting that,
throughout all of history, Jesus has been considered a model of
humility. Yet, if He was not whom He claimed to be, then He was
the very opposite of humble. William Lyon Phelps has written:
Either his assumption of authority came from his union
with God, or he was the most conceited of human beings.
Modesty is one of the finest manly attributes; a man
cannot be perfect, cannot even be called very good, who
lacks modesty, who takes Himself too seriously. If
Jesus were only a man, he lacked one of the cardinal
virtues and was marked by a fault peculiarly offensive.
But the angels and the shepherds and the wise men who
celebrated the first Christmas, they knew who he was.
Kneeling before the manger at Bethlehem they worshipped
the Divine Saviour.4
__________________________________
1C. S. Lewis, "Christian Apologetics," in C. S. Lewis, God In the
Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1970), p. 101.
2C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Co., Inc.,
1943), pp. 55-56.
3C. S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" in C. S.
Lewis, God In The Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 157-158.
4William Lyon Phelps, Human Nature and the Gospel (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925), pp. 21-22.
MIRACLES: ARE THEY POSSIBLE?
The problem of presuppositions will be treated in a later
chapter, but it is important to note that if one presupposes that
miracles do not occur, then even a great deal of evidence to the
contrary can be dismissed, since people are not apt to give
serious consideration to things that do not fit into their own
particular world view.
The problem is compounded for those who take for granted
that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then there is no
way to account for miracles. What could cause them? Yet, for
such people, the wonder should be that there is any order in the
universe at all.
If there are laws of nature, where did they come from? If
there are rules to the universe, who made them? And if God had
the power to make them, does He also have the power to violate
them if He so chooses?
Naturalism, or the system of thought according to which
miracles are impossible, had one of its ablest critics in C. S.
Lewis, who wrote of it:
When it takes the final step and we attempt a
naturalistic account of thought itself, suddenly the
whole thing unravels. The last fatal step has
invalidated all the preceding ones: for they were all
reasonings and reason itself has been
discredited. . . . By thinking at all we have claimed
that our thoughts are more than mere natural events.1
This argument is fully developed in his book, Miracles, chapter
3, which was rewritten for the 1960 edition and entitled, "The
Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism."2
According to C. S. Lewis, reason itself cannot be explained
purely in terms of naturalism. If the reasoning process is a
purely naturalistic phenomenon, then its results cannot be
trusted, and it becomes highly questionable whether there is any
possibility of arriving at truth through it.
__________________________________
1C. S. Lewis, God In the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 138.
2C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,
1960), pp. 12-24.
DAVID HUME ON MIRACLES
Twentieth-century philosophers usually consider David Hume's
essay, "Of Miracles," to have dealt the decisive death-blow to
any belief either in the supernatural or in the miracles of the
Bible. This essay appears as the tenth section of Hume's
treatise, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, originally
published in 1748.
He argues as follows:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as
a firm and unalterable experience has established these
laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature
of the fact, is as entire as any argument from
experience can possibly be imagined. . . . But it is a
miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because
that has never been observed in any age or
country. . . . There must, therefore, be a uniform
experience against every miraculous event, otherwise
the event would not merit that appellation. And as
uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a
direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact,
against the existence of any miracle1
In stating that the raising of a dead man "has never been
observed in any age or country," Hume is begging the question.
Has such a thing never been observed in any age or country? He
is assuming that it has not ever been observed. What if it has
been observed?
Hume's argument is based upon the presupposition of a
complete uniformity of natural causes. However, such an
assumption is not even consistent with his theory of knowledge,
according to which "all effects follow not with like certainty
from their supposed causes."2 According to Hume, there is no
necessary connection between a cause and its supposed effect; we
infer that there is such a connection on the basis of repeated
observation. But if the connections between cause and effect are
based upon human inference, how can we be sure that there is any
uniformity of natural causes without exception? It would be
inconsistent to hold that there is a uniformity of natural causes
if there is no necessary connection between a cause and its
effect. Even if we were to infer such a uniformity on the basis
of observation, it would be based only upon a very small
percentage of all observed phenomena. Is it safe to infer
complete uniformity if our collective observation is extremely
limited?
Another argument that Hume uses against miracles is as
follows:
They are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and
barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever
given admission to any of them, that people will be
found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous
ancestors.3
If Hume is correct, then how does he explain the fact that the
Roman Empire in the first three centuries was neither barbarous
nor ignorant, yet gave rise to a widespread belief in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the other miracles believed by
Christians? He writes that a miracle:
has a much better chance for succeeding in remote
countries, than if the first scene had been laid in a
city renowned for arts and knowledge.4
If this is so, then why did Christianity first succeed in one of
the most highly developed cultures in all of history?
Hume argues that one should be dependent upon past
observation in evaluating whether miracles are possible. Yet
Hume discounts all observations of past miracles in his amassing
of past experience. He enumerates many observations of past
miracles, but does not consider them to be part of the evidence
based upon past experience. It would be as though one argued
that lunar eclipses could not occur because our observation of
the moon is such that it does not happen. All observations to
the contrary are inconsistent with "universal" experience. Such
an argument merely assumes the conclusion it seeks to prove.
Because Hume's arguments against miracles merely assume the
conclusions that he draws, he only begs the question without
demonstrating his point.
__________________________________
1David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in
Richard Wollheim, Hume on Religion (London: Collins, 1963), pp.
210-211.
2Ibid., p. 206.
3Ibid., p. 215.
4Ibid., p. 216.
MIRACLES THROUGHOUT HISTORY
Many people argue against the miracles of the Bible by
asking why there have been no miracles since the time the Bible
was written. However, there is an abundance of evidence that
miracles have been happening throughout the history of the
Church. For example, Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies 5:6:1
(A.D. 185):
In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the
church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through
the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to
light for the general benefit the hidden things of men,
and declare the mysteries of God.
Many of the other early church fathers referred to the
operation of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and recorded
other miraculous phenomena which took place in their day,
including demonic activity. Even Augustine of Hippo (a.D. 354-
430), who had originally adopted the view that miracles had
ceased with the apostolic age, changed his opinion during the
last two or three years of his life. This change of viewpoint
was precipitated by a revival in North Africa, where Augustine
lived. Suddenly, miracles seemed to proliferate. Augustine
quickly decided to publicize the miraculous healings in North
Africa, and as bishop in Hippo, he examined and recorded each
report that came to his attention. He gave verified reports of
healings a maximum of publicity, and he insisted upon receiving a
written report from every person who claimed to be healed. This
report, or libellus, would then be read publicly in church, in
the presence of the writer, and would later be stored in
Augustine's library. He attempted to persuade his colleagues to
use the same system, but without great success. In the case of
the healing of a noble lady in Carthage, Augustine was
disappointed that she failed to use her rank and influence to
publicize a miracle of healing that she had experienced. A
renowned twentieth-century specialist in Augustine, Peter Brown,
stated that Augustine attempted to bring together various
incidents of miracles "until they formed a single corpus, as
compact and compelling as the miracles that had assisted the
growth of the Early Church."1 Some of the material that
Augustine collected appears in the last book (Book 22) of his
work, City of God, the eighth chapter of which contains a very
lengthy description of miracles which he had either witnessed
himself, or about which he had heard from those whom he
considered to be reliable witnesses.2
The account in City of God is too lengthy for detailed
treatment here, but included in it are reports of healings of
blindness, multiple rectal fistula, cancer of the breast, gout,
paralysis, hernia of the scrotum, and other diseases. Augustine
recounts other miracles in which farm animals were cured, demons
were cast out of certain individuals, and the dead were raised.
In one case, a poor man who lost his cloak prayed, and later
found a huge fish squirming upon the beach. He sold it to a
restaurant, where a gold ring was found in the gullet of the fish
and given to him. In another case, a cart drawn by oxen ran over
a child. After his mother prayed, the child not only returned to
consciousness, but he showed no sign of the crushing he had
suffered.
One of the greatest early works of church history is the
Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People,
written in A.D. 731. This is a valuable source, known for its
separation of historical fact from hearsay and tradition.3 Bede
was a very careful scholar, and did his utmost to find reliable
source material for his work, often sending emissaries to various
places like Rome to gather important source materials.
Throughout Bede's work there are accounts of miracles. In fact,
the entire work is so saturated with accounts of miracles that if
one were to discount them, one would have to discount the entire
work, which would be impossible, since the events it describes
are woven so unmistakably into the tapestry of history. A
summary of the contents of Bede's Ecclesiastical History would be
far beyond the scope of this book, but a single sample from it
would be helpful for the purposes of illustration. At one point,
Bede quoted extensively from a letter, dated A.D. 601, sent to
Augustine of Canterbury by Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome.
The content is as follows:
I know, most loving brother, that Almighty God, by
means of your affection, shows great miracles in the
nation which he has chosen. Wherefore it is necessary
that you rejoice with fear, and tremble whilst you
rejoice, on account of the same heavenly gift; viz.,
that you may rejoice because the souls of the English
are by outward miracles drawn to inward grace; but that
you fear, lest, amidst the wonders that are wrought,
the weak mind may be puffed up in its own presumption,
and as it is externally raised to honour, it may thence
inwardly fall by vain-glory. For we must call to mind,
that when the disciples returned with joy after
preaching, and said to their heavenly Master, "Lord, in
thy name, even the devils are subject to us;" they were
presently told, "Do not rejoice on this account, but
rather rejoice for that your names are written in
heaven." For they place their thoughts on private and
temporal joys, when they rejoice in miracles; but they
are recalled from the private to the public, and from
the temporal to the eternal joy, when it is said to
them, "Rejoice for this, because you names are written
in heaven." For all the elect do not work miracles,
and yet the names of all are written in heaven. For
those who are disciples of the truth ought not to
rejoice, save for that good thing which all men enjoy
as well as they, and of which their enjoyment shall be
without end.
It remains, therefore, most dear brother, that
amidst those things, which, through the working of our
Lord, you outwardly perform, you always inwardly
strictly judge yourself, and clearly understand both
what you are yourself, and how much grace is in that
same nation, for the conversion of which you have also
received the gift of working miracles. And if you
remember that you have at any time offended our
Creator, either by word or deed, that you always call
it to mind, to the end that the remembrance of your
guilt may crush the vanity which rises in your heart.
And whatsoever you shall receive, or have received, in
relation to working miracles, that you consider the
same, not as conferred on you, but on those for whose
salvation it has been given you.4
This letter is one of the most precious records in all of
the history of Christian literature. In it, Gregory does not
marvel at miracles or revel in them. He accepts them as a fact
of life and goes on to warn Augustine of Canterbury of a very
real danger. The letter expresses genuine concern for the well-
being of a Christian brother. Its marks of authenticity are
unmistakable. The letter is manifestly not an attempt to
convince others that miracles have been taking place, for this is
not the slightest concern of the author. The facts of history
are all in accord with the content of the letter. Nobody can
deny that Gregory the Great was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590
until A.D. 604, that Augustine of Canterbury was sent by Gregory
to England as a missionary, and that Bede would have had access
to such a letter is his assiduous efforts in writing a careful
history of Christianity in Britain. Gregory was known to be
preoccupied constantly with the problem of pride in himself and
in others, but particularly within himself. To deny the
authenticity of the letter, one would have to tear it out of the
very fabric of history, and one would be left with countless
loose ends which could never be fitted back together.
Miraculous phenomena were also associated with Bernard of
Clairvaux (A.D. 1090-1153), Hildegard of Bingen (A.D. 1098-1179),
Dominic (A.D. 1170-1221), Francis of Assisi (A.D. 1182-1226),
Anthony of Padua (A.D. 1195-1231), Clare of Montefalco (d. 1308),
Bridget of Sweden (A.D. 1303-1373), Vincent Ferrer (A.D. 1350-
1419), Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1546), the "French Prophets"
(A.D. 1685-1710), and many others. Miracles were observed during
the Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, and the revival
of 1857-59, and have usually taken place during periods of
revival throughout church history.
__________________________________
1Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967), p. 415.
2Augustine, City of God, book 22, chapter 8, in Roy J. Deferrari,
ed., The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1954), vol. 24, pp. 431-450.
3F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian Church, second edition (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1974), p. 150.
4The Venerable Bede, Ecclesiastical History of England, Chapter
31, trans. J. A. Giles (London: George Bell & Sons, 1900), p. 57.
TWENTIETH CENTURY MIRACLES
Miracles became so commonplace in the late twentieth century
that the antisupernaturalistic world view that was predominant
for most of that century eventually gave way to a less dogmatic
consensus on this question among many scholars.
A large proportion of these phenomena took place either in
third world countries or among adherents of the Pentecostal and
Charismatic movements. Those who attribute the miracles of these
movements to demonic activity also acknowledge that they are
miracles.
One of the classic accounts of a twentieth-century miracle
appears in the opening pages of Walter J. Hollenweger's book, The
Pentecostals:
Rabbi Jacob Rabinowitz belonged to an old rabbinic
family. For seventeen generations his ancestors had
been rabbis. . . . In the summer of 1960 a friend
invited him to a service of the Assemblies of God . . .
in Pasadena, Texas. He accepted the invitation
reluctantly. . . . After a short address, the
evangelist invited anyone present who had a personal
problem to kneel on the red carpet in front of the
altar step to receive the blessing of the congregation.
Jacob Rabinowitz longed to be able to lay down the
burden of his demanding double life. He knelt down
with others in front of the altar. . . . Several men
left their seats, came up to Rabinowitz and laid their
hands on his head and shoulders. . . . Then they all
began to pray together, some in English, others in
tongues.
Suddenly Rabinowitz stood up and asked with tears
in his eyes, "Which one of you is Jewish?" No one
answered. "Which one of you knows me? You'll forgive
me: I don't recognize you." Still no answer.
Now the whole church became silent. "It came from
right here, behind me," the rabbi pointed out. "Just
exactly where you're standing," he said to one of the
men. "Are you Jewish?"
"Me?" The man smiled. "My name's John Gruver.
I'm Irish." "That's the voice," said Rabinowitz, "but
tell me where you learned to speak Hebrew so well."
"I don't know a word of it," replied Gruver.
"That's where you're wrong," retorted Rabinowitz,
"because you were speaking Hebrew just now. And how
did you know my name and the name of my father? You
said in perfect Hebrew, 'I have dreamed a dream that
you will go into the big populated places and there you
will preach. The ones who have not heard will
understand you because you, Jacob, son of Rabbi
Ezekiel, come in the fullness of the blessing of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.'"1
__________________________________
1Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Minneapolis, Minn.:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), pp. 3-4.
CHRISTIANITY AND SUPERSTITION
The rise of rationalism and empiricism in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries was a result of an abhorrence of
"superstition." The magical, the mystical, and the miraculous
were all categorized as superstition, and the scientific method
was born, according to which only that which is observable should
be believed as trustworthy. Only an experiment which was
repeatable was considered valid in the determination of truth.
It became standard procedure to apply Ockham's razor to the
question of the existence of God. William of Ockham (d. 1349?)
believed in God, but people were beginning to apply his
principles in such a way as to exclude theism as a philosophical
option. According to the principle known as Ockham's razor,
assumptions introduced to explain something must not be
multiplied beyond necessity. Increasingly, philosophy began to
feel that to assume the existence of God was unnecessary in
explaining the world in which we live.
Is God an unnecessary hypothesis? Can the phenomena of our
world be adequately explained without assuming God's existence?
There are certain things that cannot be explained if we
assume that God does not exist. First of all, the existence of
the universe itself and all that is within it becomes very
problematic if there was no Creator. Secondly, the order that
exists within the universe is really inexplicable without the
existence of one who ordered it. Moreover, the origin of life
becomes extremely problematic without a Creator, especially since
the spontaneous generation of life is considered an impossibility
among scientists.
Other things that cannot be explained apart from Christian
theism are the resurrection of Christ, the fulfillment of
Biblical prophecy, and the existence of a body of literature,
which, when subjected to close examination, appears to have been
inspired by Him.
In view of the evidence for these things, it would take more
faith to believe that there is no God than to believe that He is
responsible for these things.
Medieval superstition may strain our credulity, but
Christianity as it is presented in the Scriptures is not of the
same class. The miracles described within the Bible are not
fantastic stories. Rather, they fit within the context of
history to such an extent that it would strain our credulity not
to believe them.
DEMONOLOGY AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
If Satan exists, then we have powerful evidence for the
validity of the Scriptural claims concerning supernatural
activity. The demonic activity that has taken place in all ages
is a testimony to the existence of a powerful spiritual force
opposed to God.
There are references to Satanic activity in all ages. For
example, there was a letter written by Dr. Johannes Bugenhagen
Pomeranus, the pastor who officiated at Martin Luther's wedding,
providing an account of demon possession that took place in
November of 1530. He wrote:
On the day of the festival of Simon and Judas we
arrived safely, by the grace of God, in Lbeck. Once I
had gotten there the Devil gave public notice of
himself and was recognized in a possessed girl, who,
until this time, had been quite well. Before this, his
presence in her was doubted, but now he claimed openly
to be there and to have entered the young girl through
an old woman's curse. The girl had reminded the old
woman (the Devil claimed) of a pound which she still
owed her, to which the woman responded: "I'll send the
Devil into your body."
I was with the girl today, who was well again.
Because they feared that the Devil might return, the
parents were still concerned. Her parents told me what
else the Devil had said: "Aren't there enough preachers
here? Why is it that you had to call one from
Wittenberg?" He also said: "Bugenhagen has come. I
know him well, and have often been with him, etc."
When I had heard this from the girl's father, in her
presence, I laughed and was reminded of the verse in
Acts 19: "Jesus I know well and Paul I know well, etc."
It is quite true that he has often tempted me and
bothered me with his thousand tricks, trying to
disprove my teaching and faith, but because of Christ,
who helped me by His grace, he was not able to achieve
anything except to provoke me to do battle with him. I
have still not forgotten what he tried to do through
the Silesian Sacramentalists, etc. In other sins it
has seemed as if he was defeating me. But, Christ be
thanked, though he was pleased to visit me, he was not
pleased to stay. I would remind you again to pray for
me in this matter, etc.
But to return to the situation: I asked the girl,
who is about eighteen years old and continually bed-
ridden, if, after she had come to herself again and was
feeling well, she was aware of the way in which she had
cursed and mocked. She answered no, that she knew
nothing of this. Her parents told me the same thing.
They, too, had questioned her when she had regained her
senses as to why she had mocked so terribly. She had
answered them: "I didn't do it, it was the Devil in me;
but I have no idea what I did." They also told me the
following: Yesterday, while the Devil was torturing
her, the father began to quote to her from the Word of
God, and, when that did not help, he took a copy of the
German New Testament and held it in front of her. She,
however, turned her face away and began biting the
pillow that was under her head, etc. I spoke for a
while with the girl and she gave proper Christian
answers and a good understanding of her baptism. I was
especially concerned to convince her not to get the
idea that she was forced to belong to the Devil simply
because he had tortured her, etc. Finally, I knelt,
along with all who were present, laid my hands on her
head, and prayed. She thanked me as I was leaving.
While I was writing this letter, however, a
messenger came and told me that the Devil had tortured
the girl again, had thrown her naked out of bed, and
under a table, and then under a chair, and had twisted
her neck so badly that she would have died had not her
father quickly come to help. The girl's parents
pleaded that I should come. So I went, and, as I
arrived in front of the house, I heard a loud scream.
When I entered and reached the possessed girl I heard
with my own ears these words: "Bugenhagen the traitor
is coming! Oh the traitor, he wants to torture me and
will not allow me to remain! Oh, I must go out!" I
stood there dumbfounded, and even though I did not
believe the liar, I nevertheless interpreted his words
to refer not only to the possessed girl, but to the
entire city; that is, that I would not tolerate the
Devil's kingdom in it. May the God of all mercy permit
and accomplish this through Jesus Christ our Lord,
Amen.
All those present claimed that the girl had not
formerly known my name, and added that she had mocked
horribly before I had entered the house. Now when she
screamed, I yelled back and called her by name:
"Elizabeth!" The Devil answered: "Elizabeth,
Elizabeth." Then I said: "Yes, are you trying to deny
it? Why shouldn't I call you Elizabeth? You gave me
testimony today that you received that very same name
in baptism, by which we are baptized into Christ." He
then began to pounce about, screaming so loudly that
those present could not hear each other. But I fell to
my knees and prayed earnestly with the intensity which
the girl's misery and despair wrung out of me, speaking
loudly so that all could hear, that the Lord Jesus
should free her--for He had said, "In my name they will
drive out devils." I think that the others were
praying with me since I had turned my back to them.
Meanwhile the Devil screamed: "I must go out! Oh I
must go out!", and tortured the girl horribly. But her
father held her. Immediately after this she lay still,
so that her father no longer had to hold her. She lay
there, breathing heavily as if she was about to depart.
Meanwhile the father told me what the Devil had said to
him yesterday before I had arrived: "You doubt that I
am present! Now look, I have given you a clear sign!"
He pointed to a hole in the window which he had broken.
"That," said he, "is how I entered, etc."
Though the girl's body was still moving, we were
afraid that she was slipping away. While I sat and
waited to see what would happen, she opened her eyes
just as if she was awakening from sleep. I spoke to
her with a quiet voice: "Elizabeth!" She answered:
"What?" I continued: "Do you know what you have done
and the way in which you mocked?" She answered: "No."
So I reminded her in the same way I had earlier in the
day. Then I knelt and prayed with my hands on her head
that she should be free, etc. Having finished praying,
I asked her to say the Amen. This she did willingly.
And so I left; but I have been told that the Devil
tortured her again that night, just as we read in the
Gospel concerning the swine, etc., and screamed: "I
must go out, but where shall be my habitation? There
is a horse in Lnenburg; I will enter it, or perhaps
the chain-maker." Now the girl's father was of the
same profession and was, as we say, an adventurous man,
since, to my surprise, he had spoken to me without fear
from the start, as soon as he was certain that it was
the Devil. Said he: "If it weren't a sin there's a lot
I would ask the scoundrel and he would have to answer
it all." I, however, forbade him to ask anything
secretly of the Tempter or to allow it of anyone else.
I did not ask what else had happened.
I am puzzled that Satan can confuse people this
way. But no matter what he does or says, he still
shows that he is a stupid and condemned spirit. These
things happened on the eve of All Saints Day, in the
year 1530. May God graciously give us the victory
against all of [the Devil's] fiery darts through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Amen.1
In our own day and age, demonic activity continues. Stan
Mooneyham has provided ten examples of demonic activity on
various mission fields during the latter half of the twentieth
century. Among them was an account from Demon Experiences in
Many Lands, a symposium published by Moody Press in 1960, in
which W. E. Wright, a missionary in Western Nigeria, told of an
encounter with a witch doctor:
He volunteered to read to me from his book, and before
I could stop him, for I had seen enough, he began
nonsense reading in an ordinary voice. Then suddenly
his voice changed. He was possessed, and I heard a
demon through his lips telling me that I had a sick
little girl in my house. (My daughter had been sick
for several days, and as he was a total stranger it was
unlikely that he would have heard it.) I silenced him
as quickly as I could, reading to him from my Book.2
Mooneyham also quotes from a 1964 issue of Practical
Anthropology which contains a testimony of a Choco believer in
Latin America, quoted by Dr. Jacob A. Loewen:
I am so glad for the powerful Spirit of God who keeps
those who have given God the hand and walk on God's
road. A few nights ago we had a real testing. . . . A
Colombian witch doctor came to visit a relative who
lives in my house. I used to be afraid of devils, and
so when this witch doctor was going to "sing demons" at
night, I became worried that I would again become
afraid. So before going to sleep I told God about the
things that were on my heart. I told him, "You have
brought me from the devil's hand; you have taken my
fear away. Don't' let me or my family become afraid
this night." It was after midnight when I suddenly
awoke hearing someone talking loudly. When I listened,
I heard the witch doctor say, "Who has been praying?
My hai won't come tonight." I was happy to know and to
see again that God is stronger than all the devils.
When the Spirit of God watches my house, the devil's
can't even come there.3
Another example provided by Stan Mooneyham is from Hugh
White, a veteran Southern Presbyterian missionary in China:
Demonism as seen today is the same as in the time of
Christ. The terminology is so identical as to make one
feel that he is walking the streets of Nazareth or
Capernaum. It is a common experience that the demon
"vexes" one, the demon talks, comes and goes, throws
the patient down, tries to kill him.4
These are only a few isolated examples from a vast body of
literature on demonology. If the enemy is alive and well, then
we have good evidence that the Biblical accounts of demon
possession are not flights of fancy. Moreover, if Satan exists,
it points to the existence of God, the One whom he opposes.
__________________________________
1Quoted by John Warwick Montgomery, Principalities and Powers
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1973), pp. 181-183.
2Quoted by W. Stanley Mooneyham, "Demonism on the Mission Field:
Problems of Communicating a Difficult Phenomenon," in John
Warwick Montgomery, ed., Demon Possession (Minneapolis, Minn.:
Bethany Fellowship, 1976), p. 211.
3Quoted in Ibid.
4Quoted in Ibid.
ANSWERED PRAYER
Another powerful indication of the existence of God and of
the validity of the Christian Scriptures is the vast body of
evidence for answered prayer stretching from the time of the
early Church until the present day. Whether one reads the
biographies of the ancient fathers or the devotional works of
modern saints, one finds countless examples of cases in which
prayers have been answered. One can read about the prayers of
Monica for the conversion of her son Augustine of Hippo as
related in Augustine's autobiographical work, the Confessions, or
about modern answers to prayer, for example, among the oppressed
people of Eastern Europe yearning for a greater measure of
freedom.
In recent times, one of the most widely influential
individuals advocating a life of prayer and trust in God's
provision in answer to prayer was George Mller of Bristol. His
life was a tremendous testimony to answered prayer which
influenced countless others to live similar lives of faith. The
Holiness movement of the nineteenth century and the Pentecostal
movement of the early twentieth century were both heavily
influenced by his methods, which involved asking God for
financial support for His work without any solicitation of funds
from those who would be able to willing to donate money.
George Mller was founder of the New Orphan-Houses, Ashley
Down, Bristol, which became known as "institutions that have been
for many years the greatest monuments of modern times to a
prayer-answering God."1 Mller wrote a book, The Narrative of
Some of the Lord's Dealings With George Mller, which provides
many specific examples of how God answered his prayers for
provision for the orphans in his care. For example, he wrote:
June 15, 1837--Today I gave myself once more earnestly
to prayer respecting the remainder of the 1000. This
evening 5 was given, so that now the whole sum is made
up. To the Glory of the Lord, whose I am, and who I
serve, I would state again, that every shilling of this
money, and all the articles of clothing and furniture,
which have been given to me, without one single
individual having been asked by me for anything.2
This notation in his diary provides one of many examples of
answers to prayer, especially with respect to the specific needs
of the orphanages. The 1000 that he received was in answer to a
prayer of December 5, 1835, when he also prayed for furniture,
clothing, and suitable people to care for the children. On
December 10, he received a letter from some people offering their
services for the orphanage, along with all of their furniture and
supplies. Another similar letter was received from another
couple on December 13.
George Mller wanted his work to be a testimony to answered
prayer, and therefore never let his needs be known to other
people, but only to God. Yet, time after time, God answered his
prayers in very specific ways. His Narratives were read in many
places and became the pattern used by many others, spawning many
"faith works" in Britain, America, and elsewhere. One of the
distinctive characteristics of these ministries was a total
dependence upon God for the needs of the work. No offerings were
taken, and there were no solicitations of funds. The fact that
thousands of such ministries survived is a testimony to the fact
that God answers prayer.
__________________________________
1A. E. C. Brooks, Answers to Prayer From George Mller's
Narratives (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), p. 7.
2Quoted in Ibid., p. 14.
CHANGED LIVES: CHRISTIAN FAITH AND LIFE THROUGHOUT HISTORY
Another powerful testimony to the truth of the Christian
Gospel is the fact that millions of people's lives have been
changed radically by the power of Christ. Alcoholics have been
delivered, drug dependencies have been cured, cowards have found
courage, and selfish people have found new meaning in selfless
devotion to others and to Christ. People have found new peace
and joy as a result of giving their lives to Jesus Christ. He
has helped them as they have given Him Lordship, and He has
delivered them from their bad attitudes and habits, things which
they had not been able to change by the use of their own
volition.
We have already seen how the lives of the early Christians
were changed after the resurrection. The cowardly, discouraged
followers of Jesus Christ were transformed to the extent that
they were able to turn the world upside down in their witness for
Christ. Although Peter denied Him, and all of His disciples
forsook Him and fled, most of them eventually gave their lives as
Christian martyrs. The same pattern is observable throughout all
of Christian History.
The changes wrought by Jesus Christ in peoples' lives
involve a turning to honesty, integrity, and morality. These
changes are very surprising; sometimes they are so strartling as
to merit publicity in the secular news media. This was the case,
for example, for a thief who repented in 1974, and who was the
subject of a news article on front page of the September 18, 1974
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, entitled "Thief Repents and
Recycles":
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP)--Kevin Copley, 14, walked out
of his house yesterday and found his bicycle, stolen
from him last February.
Attached was a note saying, "Since I've stolen
your bicycle I received a conviction to return it when
I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. I am truly
sorry. But I asked for forgiveness and God gave it to
me. Since He forgave me for my sins, He can forgive
you for all your sins. Trust Him."
It was signed, "A born-again believer."
Copley said the bicycle was unscratched and
undamaged and in as good condition as when he received
it on Christmas Day 1973.
The power of Jesus Christ to change lives can also be seen
in the effect that His Word has upon those who read it carefully.
Eric Booth, the well-known and richly experienced New York actor,
came to Christ as a result of studying his lines for the play,
"St. Mark's Gospel," directed by British actor Alec McCowen, in
which Booth was to recite the entire King James version of the
book of Mark at a three-week engagement at the World Playhouse in
Chicago. He said:
I came to this from a completely secular point of view.
I suppose that sounds like blasphemy to the devout, but
in this case I believe it's the best way to approach
the work. I have no ax to grind. I'm not a preacher.
I'm not an evangelist. All I want to do is give the
audience the story. And then it's up to them.
At first, it was like learning the lines to any
play--just plain hard work and very little emotional
response. But then I began to see that the simple and
direct things Jesus said are really true for me.
. . . But now I have this gut-level feeling that
all these things happened. I don't know how, and I
don't understand it, but now somehow I believe it all
took place just as it was described. And so I live
with something beyond my understanding.1
A similar thing happened for McCowen, the director, who said that
learning the Gospel of Mark was a "revelation of an extraordinary
man, of extraordinary events, of extraordinary hope. . . Whether
or not you are a believer, it is impossible to study St. Mark
carefully and not know--without any shadow of doubt--that
something amazing happened in Galilee 2,000 years ago."2
__________________________________
1Bruce Buursma, "One-man Gospel Play a Revelation For Actor,"
Chicago Tribune, January 20, 1981, Tempo section, pp. 1, 6.
2Ibid., p. 6.
Return to Evidence
Page
Return To
Homepage.
Last Updated: June 23, 1995