While this blog has hopefully made it crystal clear that I no longer subscribe to a Fundamentalist/Literalist view of Scripture (and that I believe such a perspective is theologically, philosophically, historically, and scientifically unsustainable), I have also affirmed my continuing high regard for Scripture, and my conviction that those writings are Divinely inspired. Hence, just as I have argued against regarding the Bible as inerrant and the "final authority in matters of faith," longtime readers will have also noticed that I occasionally post the reasons for my continuing reverence for that book. For most folks, the Bible is an all or nothing proposition (which I have repeatedly characterized as a false dilemma). In my opinion there are a number of reasons NOT to be too quick to dismiss Scripture as superstitious nonsense of the past.
In this post, we will focus on both the internal and external evidence which supports a respectful view of the collection of documents popularly known as the New Testament. After all, the narrative about Christ and his apostles (along with various letters by them to the Christians of that day and age) are the basis for the Christian Religion/Faith! Moreover, the authenticity and reliability of those documents has a direct bearing on many of the questions which plague modern scholars, nonbelievers, and the faithful around the world. Questions like: Did Jesus Christ really exist? Was he really crucified and resurrected? Why do we have four gospel accounts in our canon? Is it reasonable to believe that what started out as a bunch of oral traditions (and was only committed to written texts thirty to forty years after the actual events took place) about what was said and done could accurately reflect that reality? Why are the Synoptic Gospels so similar (also known as the Synoptic Problem)? Did someone named Paul really write those epistles? Were all of those documents really derived from the Age of the Apostles?
In evaluating the reliability and value of the New Testament, we must first consider the evidence provided by the actual writings that make up that canon. First, there is widespread acceptance among Biblical scholars that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. Similarly, it is generally acknowledged that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. This, in turn, leads one to the inevitable conclusion that Matthew and Luke had at least one other unique source for the information contained therein (as there is material that is unique to each gospel). Now, while a great deal of attention has been paid to the high degree of harmony that exists among the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), many scholars are much more interested in the differences/discrepancies which exist in those accounts of Christ's life. Moreover, I have to say that I personally find those differences to represent the most interesting and compelling textual evidence available to us.
After all, we expect different people who witness the same event(s) to have slightly different takes/perspectives on exactly what happened. In fact, most of us would be more suspicious if these gospels were completely harmonious! For instance, one would expect one person to describe a robe as red, and another person to describe the exact same robe as purple. Likewise, in recalling what someone had to say at some critical event, most folks will often only remember some of what was actually said. It is also not uncommon for folks to emphasize the things which are important to them and to paraphrase and/or interpret what someone else has said. Again, for me, these kinds of discrepancies among different folks' accounts of the same events are to be expected. In other words, for me, these variations/differences/discrepancies make the accounts more believable.
What about someone deciding to write an account of something that happened thirty or forty years ago? We all know that a person's memory fades over time and often "plays tricks" on him. For our purposes, we will ignore that the authors of these writings claimed Divine help in remembering the events. After all, we are trying to evaluate the writings based on verifiable evidence that can be objectively evaluated by everyone! Hence, we should all be willing to acknowledge that there are a number of circumstances related to these writings that make them rather unique in this respect, and that reinforce the impression that they might have more merit than writings derived from other older oral traditions. For one thing, we have already established that most scholars believe these gospel accounts were at least in part derived from older written sources (e/g. collections of the sayings of Jesus).
I am, of course, also thinking about the notoriety of Jesus, and the number of people who would have been familiar with his story and teachings. Even if we allow that the authors of the various writings exaggerated/inflated the numbers of the people who heard Christ's messages or witnessed some of the various events associated with him, we must still come to the conclusion that many thousands of people had to have been exposed to Jesus and his teachings. Moreover, those writings make very plain that fifteen to twenty people (including twelve apostles) were very close to Christ during his ministry.
Hence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a relatively large number of people would have been intimately familiar with the man and his teachings. It is also reasonable to assume that these folks would have reinforced each other's memories of the man. It is also reasonable to suggest that outlandish deviations from a widely known narrative would not have been well-received/tolerated within this group of people who had personally experienced Jesus! In other words, human nature being what it is, someone would have undoubtedly called "B.S." if the story had strayed too far from what the others knew to be the truth of the matter!
We should also note what a large role the Hebrew Bible played in the writing of the New Testament. Indeed, throughout the N.T. the Hebrew Scriptures are referenced and quoted extensively. In other words, it is evident that Christ's story was guided and influenced by an older and well-established narrative (which would necessarily place further guardrails on the project). After all, if Christ really was who he had said he was (the Messiah), then his narrative would have to conform to those Scriptures. If he really was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, then his own story would have to demonstrate that fact.
It is also widely acknowledged (even by Fundamentalist scholars) that Paul's epistles represent the earliest Christian writings available to us. Why is that important? Because it demonstrates that the basic outlines of Christ's story had already been told and disseminated by the time that the gospels were written. Although Paul's writings have been criticized for how little they reveal about the real Jesus, we must also acknowledge that the framework of the more detailed narrative is there. After all, Paul does make plain that Christ lived a sinless life, taught his disciples to love each other, instituted the Eucharist and baptism, paid the penalty for our sins by his death, was later resurrected, ascended to heaven, and promised to return to this earth someday. There is also abundant evidence in Paul's epistles that he was not bashful about calling out anyone who diverged from the narrative about Jesus which he had promulgated among the gentiles.
How do we know that Paul actually wrote the epistles attributed to him? As you probably already know, there are a large number of scholars who do NOT think that Paul wrote all of those letters! These scholars generally divide the epistles attributed to the apostle into two groups: the undisputed epistles and those which are disputed as being genuine letters of Paul.
However, as longtime readers of this blog know, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Paul was the author of all (or most) of the epistles attributed to him. To summarize, the internal evidence for this rests in the fact that Paul usually co-authored his epistles with various of his coworkers, and often assigned the actual task of writing the letter to someone else. This would obviously account for many of the grammatical and textual differences which scholars have noted among these writings. Moreover, there is also the early and widespread acceptance of Pauline authorship among folks who would have personally known (or known of) the apostle. Even so, the question of Pauline authorship of these epistles is NOT essential to the wider issues addressed in this post.
Finally, the wide dissemination of Paul's epistles, and the four canonical gospels twenty to thirty years later further served to lockdown the narrative about Christ and his apostles. How do we know that these writings were widely disseminated by the end of the First Century? For this we must go to the writings which immediately followed the Age of the Apostles - those external or extra-canonical sources we mentioned at the beginning of this post.
One of the earliest external references to the writings of the New Testament comes to us from Clement of Rome who was a contemporary and apparent acquaintance of the Apostle Paul (Phillipians 4:3). In Clement's epistle to the Corinthian church, he referenced information found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke (see Clement of Rome to the Corinthians - 13 and Clement of Rome to the Corinthians - 46). He also mentions two of Christ's apostles, Peter and Paul (see Clement of Rome to the Corinthians - 5), and he demonstrates a familiarity with many of Paul's epistles throughout the same letter.
Another early external reference to the writings contained in our New Testament canon comes to us from Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (69-155 CE). In his Epistle to the Philippians, we see a number of references to the gospel narrative and Paul's epistles. He wrote: "being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again;' and once more, 'Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'" (See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians -2)
A contemporary of Polycarp's (and probably the most prolific of the early Christian writers), who was also mentioned by the Bishop of Smyrna in the above-mentioned epistle, was Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch (30-107 CE). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he quoted extensively from the Gospel of John (with a few references to the gospels of Matthew and Luke) and from several of Paul's epistles. Likewise, in Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians, there are a number of references to Paul's epistles and a few quotations from the gospels of Matthew and John. In his Epistle to the Romans, the bishop quotes from the Gospel of John: "If ye were of this world, the world would love its own; but now ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me." Again, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he made several references to the epistles of the Apostle Paul. In similar fashion, Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, is full of references to Paul's epistles and the Gospel of John.
From the same period that Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were writing their epistles (late First and Early Second Century), we have what has been described by some as the first Christian catechism. In The Didache, Christ's distillation of the Law into two great commandments (Love for God and love for neighbor) is expounded upon and underscored. Moreover, there are expositions on baptism and the Eucharist. Also, the "Lord's Prayer" is quoted in its entirety. Finally, the catechism concludes with an encouragement for Christians to be prepared for Christ's return.
Also, from this same period, we have an epistle attributed to Barnabas. The letter purports to be "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." While making very clear that Christians are not bound by the terms of the Torah and are operating under the terms of the New Covenant, the epistle (like the canonical gospels and epistles) portrays Christ as the fulfillment of many of the rituals/symbols outlined in the Hebrew Bible. The letter also discusses the cross as a Christian symbol and baptism as a Christian ritual. Like the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, the two epistles attributed to Peter, I John and Revelation, the second part of this epistle contrasts the ways of light and darkness for Christians. Finally, echoing the words of Christ, the epistle states that Christians should "Give to every one that asketh thee."
Writing in the middle of the Second Century, the surviving works of Justin Martyr indicate a broad familiarity with the material contained in the New Testament canon. In The First Apology of Justin Martyr, we find evidence of a man who was well-acquainted with the gospel narrative and the Christian religion elucidated by the Apostle Paul. Indeed, those writings indicate a profound familiarity with the Gospel of Matthew. He also talks about Simon Magus whose brief story is told in the book of Acts. In this same writing, Justin also offers a detailed exposition on the Eucharist. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin makes plain that he understands that Christians are not obligated to observe the tenets of the Torah and are operating under a New Covenant because of what Christ had done for them. In those same writings (Dialogue), he went on to make clear that Christians believe that Christ will someday return to this earth.
By the second half of the Second Century of the Common Era, the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons demonstrate that most of the writings of the New Testament canon were known widely and considered authoritative. A few examples from his surviving writings will illustrate this point. In his Against Heresies (1-1), Irenaeus mention the Parable of the Laborers found in the Gospel of Matthew. Likewise, in Against Heresies (1-3), he quotes from Colossians, Ephesians, and I Corinthians. In Against Heresies (1-8), Irenaeus quotes Matthew, Luke, John, Romans, I Corinthians, and Ephesians. In Against Heresies (1-23), he uses the story of Simon Magus found in the book of Acts. Irenaeus also quotes from the book of Revelation in Against Heresies (1-26). In Against Heresies (2-22), he quotes extensively from the Gospel of John. Irenaeus attests to the fact that Polycarp received his bishopric by apostolic appointment, mentions Clement, and quotes from Paul's epistle to Titus in Against Heresies (3-3). Likewise, in Against Heresies (3-7), he quotes from Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians and his epistle to the Galatians. In chapters 9-11 of this same third book, he references all four of the canonical gospels! In Against Heresies (3-12), Irenaeus quotes extensively from the book of Acts. Indeed, the fact that he was very familiar with the book of Acts is further attested to by the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the same book (3). In Against Heresies (5-35), Irenaeus quotes extensively from the book of Revelation. These are just a few of this Second Century bishop's quotations from (and references to) the writings which would later be included in the New Testament canon. He also quoted from and referenced in his books Against Heresies several of the other epistles not mentioned in the above references.
Hence, we can see from both the internal and external evidence which is available to us that there is sufficient evidence to support the value and reliability of the New Testament canon. In other words, an objective review of the evidence suggests that these writings paint a compelling and fairly consistent narrative about Christ and his apostles. That is NOT to suggest that those writings are inerrant, but it does suggest that they provide a reliable foundation for the Christian Faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment