Chapter 7. — Authority of the Scriptures — Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament.
CHAPTER 7. — AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES —
GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
THE volume comprising the history of the establishment of Christianity and the doctrines and institutions of the Christian Church, and for which Christians have ever claimed a divine origin, is styled the New Testament. In reference to this volume there are two important questions which we propose now to consider, viz.:
1. How may we satisfy ourselves that we have in the New
Testament the proper canon, or the duly authorized books that should be included in this volume?
2. By what evidence may it be shown that the writings of the New Testament are genuine and authentic?
1. The question — What books ought to be embraced in the New Testament as canonical? — is mainly an historical one, and can only be answered by the same kind of evidence by which we determine the genuineness and authenticity of those writings. The Roman Catholics assert the infallibility of the Church, and then appeal to her decision as the only authority on the subject. Thus it is plain that they reason in “a circle.” By this glaring sophism they prove the Scriptures by the Church, and the Church by the Scriptures — that is, they prove by the infallibility of the Church what books are Scripture, and then by the testimony of Scripture that the Church is infallible.
Some Protestants, drifting to an opposite extreme, rely altogether on internal evidence. Both these methods of settling the canon are liable to the same objection; indeed, they both effectually unsettle the canon. According to the Roman Catholic plan, we can never certainly know what the Scriptures are, for their same infallible guide may decide one way to-day and another way to-morrow; and then what is authorized Scripture at one time might not be such at another. But if we rely solely on internal evidence, this would be ever liable to vary, for in this kind of testimony scarcely two minds will judge alike. What may be very satisfactory to some, may not be so to others.
The only true way of determining what books belong to the New Testament revelation is to appeal to the general consent of the early Fathers who lived nearest to the apostles. It is a mere question of fact in reference to which they were in a condition to be well informed, and could not have been generally deceived; and it is very certain that no subsequent testimony can set aside or be as conclusive as the general consent of the Fathers and of the whole Christian Church in the age immediately succeeding the apostles.
A learned author has presented the following rule on this subject, viz.: “Every book is genuine which was esteemed genuine by those who lived nearest to the time when it was written, and by the ages following, in a continued series.”
It must be admitted that there is no other rational mode of settling a question of this nature; and where this testimony is full and harmonious, it must result in conviction beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. The genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament are sustained by a weight of testimony more full and satisfactory than can be claimed for any other production of any age half so remote from our times. The testimony of the Church confers no authority on the writings of the New Testament, but is only of use as it tends to establish the fact as to what books were written by the apostles; hence the canon of Scripture is not ascertained by the decision of any bishop or pope, or by the vote of any council, but by the settlement of the authorship of the books in question. On this subject, although the witness of Jews and pagans is of great corroborative force, yet the testimony of the early Christians is far the most conclusive and satisfactory, for they were in a situation to know the facts in the case. It is not important when or by whom these books were collected into one volume, and called the New Testament; all that is essential is, to be assured that they were written by the inspired apostles and evangelists. But this will be most clearly shown by the examination of the second question proposed.
2. By what evidence may it be shown that the writings of the New Testament are genuine and authentic?
We ask: How do we know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy, Tacitus, Pliny, Milton, Blackstone, or any other author of any past age, are genuine? The answer is obvious; and in reference to any other authors, except the sacred writers, we have little or no controversy. We inquire: What has been the testimony of those who lived nearest to the time of these authors, and of the ages following, in a continued series? If we find a general concurrence of testimony in this line all attributing the work in question to the same author, or to him whose name it bears, the point is as well established as any historic question can be, and should command our ready assent. If we receive not such testimony, we must doubt all history: we must not only doubt the genuineness and authenticity of all the writings of Greece and Rome, but also of the histories of Hume and Gibbon, and of the writings of Locke and Bacon, of Baxter and Stillingfleet. Let us now look at the evidence of this kind in favor of the New Testament.
In the first place we remark, there is no counter testimony leading us to suspect the genuineness and authenticity of these books. It cannot be shown that any one, in the period in which these works first appeared, questioned their authenticity and genuineness: no records of that day tend to impugn these writings as spurious — no long time elapsed after these writers in which these books were unknown, but they are referred to by contemporary authors — no facts are in them recorded contradicted by authentic records, or not synchronizing with their times; hence it may be asserted that there is no opposing evidence to disprove the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament.
As the quotations from the New Testament, and reference to the various books it contains, are so numerous in all ages of the Church, from the present up to the fourth century, we deem it useless to trace the evidence through that period. It will be admitted by deists themselves, that, if these writings are not genuine, they could not have been foisted upon the Church subsequently to the fourth century; therefore we commence our investigation at that chronological point.
In the fourth century we have no less than ten distinct catalogues of the books of the New Testament. Six of these correspond perfectly with the books of our present New Testament, viz., that of Athanasius in the year 315, Epiphanius in 370, Jerome in 392, Rufinus in 390, Augustin in 394, and that of forty-four bishops, at the third Council of Carthage, in 397. Of the other four catalogues — those of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in 340; of the bishops at the Council of Laodicea, in 364; and of Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, in 375 — all correspond with our books, except that they omit the book of Revelation; and in a list by Philaster, Bishop of Brescia, in 380, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation are omitted, though he elsewhere acknowledges both these books. Thus it seems that even if we admit at this period a doubt as to the authenticity of one or two books, they are such as not to affect the truth of the gospel history or the doctrines of Christianity; but any one who desires to do so, may easily satisfy himself, by consulting our numerous able authors who have written expressly on the canon of Scripture, that the evidence for the two books omitted in one or two of the lists given places their authenticity on as firm a footing as that of the other books.
From these catalogues alone, it is evident that in the fourth century the Scriptures of the New Testament not only then existed as we have them now, but their authenticity was generally acknowledged by the Church. Numerous quotations from the Fathers of this century to the same effect might he given, but we deem it needless to say more, except to refer to the witness of Eusebius, in his well-known history.
In the third century, Arnobius and Lactantius in Africa, and Victorinus in Germany, wrote commentaries on parts of the New Testament, and made extensive quotations from them; but the most important testimony of this century is that of Origen, who wrote commentaries on all the Scriptures, considering them as the acknowledged revelation of God, and embodying a catalogue of the books of the New Testament precisely as now in our possession. Various other writers in this century — Gregory, Bishop of Cesarea; Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria; Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage; Caius Romanus, Hippolytus Portuensis, Ammonius, and Julius Africanus — extensively quoted from and referred to most of the books of the New Testament.
Tertullian, of the second century, bears the most indubitable testimony to the authenticity of the New Testament. His writings are filled with long quotations from all the books of the New Testament, except the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John. But, as he did not profess to give a complete catalogue, his silence is no evidence against a book he has not named. Farther, he expressly affirms that, when he wrote, “the Christian Scriptures were open to the inspection of all the world, both Christian and heathen, without exception.” In addition to Tertullian, might be named — in the second century — Clement, of Alexandria; Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch; Athenagoras, a converted philosopher of Athens; and Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons; who all (but especially Clement and Irenæus) quoted extensively from the books of the New Testament, referring to them as of divine authority with all Christians. What adds weight to the testimony of Irenæus is the fact that he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. Though he gives no complete catalogue of all the books, yet he mentions the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, the two Epistles to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, the two Epistles of Peter, and the First and Second Epistles of John. In another place he has quoted the Epistle of James, and has also borne clear testimony to the book of Revelation. He farther mentions “the code of the New Testament as well as the Old,” and calls the one as well as the other “The Oracles of God, and Writings dictated by his Word and Spirit.”
Not detaining, with Melito, Bishop of Sardis — Hegesippus, a converted Jew — and Tatian, a converted pagan philosopher — who, in the second century, bore favorable testimony to the authenticity of the most important portions, of the New Testament, we close the evidence from this century with the witness of Justin Martyr. He was one of the most learned men of his day. He wrote extensively, but only his two Apologies for the Christians, addressed to the emperors, and senate, and people of Rome, and his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, have reached us. Before his conversion he was familiar with the various systems of pagan philosophy. In his writings he quotes extensively from the four Gospels, which he represents as a genuine and authentic record of Jesus Christ and his doctrine. He terms them “Christ’s Memoirs,” “Memoirs of the Apostles,” etc. He farther testifies that the “Memoirs of the Apostles,” etc., were read and expounded in the public service of the Christian Churches. He also expressly names, as sacred writings of the Christians, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, the Epistle of Peter, and the book of Revelation, which, he says, “was written by John, one of the apostles of Christ.”
Ascending now to the first century, our next witnesses are the Apostolic Fathers, as they are termed, or those Christian writers who were contemporary with the apostles. These are five in number — Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. The first and second named were co-laborers with St. Paul; and Hermas was also his contemporary, and is mentioned by him in the sixteenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch A.D. 70, and suffered martyrdom near the beginning of the second century. Polycarp, the immediate disciple of the Apostle John, was by him appointed Bishop of Smyrna: he also was martyred near the middle of the second century.
Although these Fathers have none of them professed to give a list of the New Testament writings, yet their testimony is very important. Instructed, as they had been, from the lips of the inspired apostles, and that through a companionship of years, they could not be mistaken in any of the leading facts and principles of Christianity as taught by the prime ministers of our blessed Lord. Their position and writings and the martyrdom with which several of them were crowned, sufficiently indorse their intelligence and integrity. These early Fathers, contemporary with the generation who witnessed the wonderful events of New Testament notoriety, have quoted and referred to the Acts of the Apostles, several of the Gospels, and most of the Epistles, styling them the “Scriptures,” the “Sacred Scriptures,” or “The Oracles of the Lord.” Their manner of quoting and referring to these books is not only evidence that these works, corresponding with our present New Testament, were then extant throughout the Christian Church, but that their authenticity was not questioned. They were read everywhere in Christian assemblies, and reverenced as the revelation of God.
It is farther clear that some of the New Testament writings were quoted by contemporary apostles themselves. The Apostle Peter refers to the “Epistles” of his “beloved brother Paul,” recognizing them as a portion of the “Scriptures.”
As evidence that these writings were not only published in Judea at this early day, but that they were extensively circulated throughout the Roman Empire, we refer to the fact that these witnessing Fathers resided in places remote from each other. Clement lived in Rome, Ignatius and Theophilus in Antioch, Polycarp in Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, Irenæus in France, Athenagoras in Athens, Origen in Alexandria, Tertullian in Carthage, Eusebius at Cesarea, and Augustin at Hippo. “Philosophers, rhetoricians, and divines — men of acuteness and learning — all concur to prove that the books of the New Testament were equally well known in distant countries, and received as authentic by men who had no intercourse with one another.” (Horne’s Introduction.)
Again, it is a fact well known that, during the first centuries of the Christian era, the Christian Church was infested with numerous heresies. The leaders of those erratic sects were generally learned and acute, and familiarly conversant with the philosophy and polemic divinity of their day. Although the writings of the New Testament were often (used) palpably against these heretics, and they were thereby tempted to pervert and interpolate certain books, and to reject others which plainly condemned their errors, yet they never ventured to deny the existence of those writings, or that they were written by the persons whose names they bear. For illustration, Cerinthus, a contemporary of the Apostle John, was a Judaizing teacher, maintaining the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic law in the Christian Church; but because the Epistles of St. Paul were so directly antagonistic to his doctrines, Cerinthus and his followers denied that Paul was a divine apostle. But this fact not only proves that these Epistles of Paul then existed, but that they were held as of divine authority by the great body of the Church, who used them as such in their controversy against Cerinthus. As affirmed by Dr. Lardner: “Noetus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans, Priscilianists, besides Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all of the same books of the New Testament which the Catholics or great body of the Church received, and agreed in the same respect for them, as being written by apostles, or their disciples and companions.”
Another evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament is derived from the fact that, at an early day, these writings were translated into other languages. The Syriac, and one or more Latin versions, were made as early as the commencement of the second century. Now, as these versions are still extant, and correspond with our copies of the original, it follows that these sacred writings not only existed at that early period, but that the New Testament, as we now have it, is a genuine production of the apostolic age — in other words, these sacred records, as now read throughout the world, in nearly a hundred different languages, are the identical Scriptures which, in less than one century from the death of Christ, were read extensively throughout the East in the Syriac, and throughout Europe and Africa in the Latin language; hence, if these writings have been surreptitiously foisted upon the Church, it could not have been done subsequently to that period, but the fraud must have been perpetrated at an age so near the birthday of Christianity as to render the success of so silly and wicked an attempt a moral impossibility. In conclusion, on this point we call attention to the testimony furnished by the adversaries of Christianity. The most prominent of these, during the second, third, and fourth centuries, were Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian.
Celsus was a learned philosopher, who flourished in the latter part of the second century.
Porphyry wrote about the middle of the third century, and was probably one of the ablest and most severe writers that ever wielded a pen against Christianity. He was well versed in philosophy and politics. He had doubtless read the New Testament, and had made himself well acquainted with both Syriac and Greek literature.
Hierocles, another learned antagonist, appeared against the Christians about the commencement of the fourth century. He gave evidence of familiar acquaintance with the New Testament, referring both to the Gospels and the Epistles, and never questioning their genuineness and authenticity.
Next on the arena, and the last we shall name, appears Julian, the apostate emperor. He ascended the imperial throne, as successor to Constantine the Great, in the year 361. He immediately renounced Christianity, and wrote with great zeal and virulence against it.
This formidable array of infidel philosophers, in their bold and rancorous assault upon Christianity, were firmly met and triumphantly vanquished by the learned Christian divines of that day. Origen, Eusebius, Augustin, Jerome, Cyril, and others, came forth in due time with masterly defenses of Christianity. From this controversy the most unanswerable arguments may be deduced in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament. Nearly all the books of this volume, as we now have them, were repeatedly referred to and extensively quoted, not only by the Christian Fathers, but by the above-named champions of infidelity. In this controversy, let it be distinctly noted, that no one of the combatants on either side ever so much as raised a question concerning the genuineness and authenticity of one single book of the New Testament. Now, we ask, what more indubitable evidence on the subject in hand can be demanded than is here furnished? Can it be supposed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the apostolic Epistles, were not the genuine productions of the authors to whom they were ascribed, and that the very remarkable and numerous facts and events therein recorded and said to have taken place publicly, in the presence often of thousands of all classes, of both sexes, and of both friends and adherents, and foes and opponents, of the parties reporting them — can it be supposed that these were not real historic records, but fictitious stories, cunningly-devised fables, wickedly-invented falsehoods, or base forgeries, and yet, how passing strange! that these learned philosophers, living in the very age and countries in which these things must have publicly transpired, or these fictitious stories have been surreptitiously foisted upon the people — can it be that all these things could have occurred, and these learned and bitter enemies of Christianity not been able to detect the cheat? Or can we suppose that they knew it all, and yet — while laboring with all their might to crush the hated superstition — they never urged, but forgot to name, the very facts which would have accomplished so effectually their cherished object of overturning Christianity? He who can believe this, is a fit companion for lunatics or madmen!
Is it not undeniable that, if the history of Jesus, as given by the Evangelists and the other New Testament writings, were not genuine and authentic, Celsus, who wrote only a little over a century after Christ, must have known it? But he gives no such intimation — he hints no such plea; but he goes to work to ridicule and oppose the Christian religion, admitting all the essential facts of the evangelical record, and referring to them again and again as authentic history, almost in the very words of the Gospels. Had it been in his power to set aside these Gospel histories, either by showing that they were not written by the apostles of Christ, as they assume to have been, or that they contain false statements — that the events did not take place as therein recorded — would he not most gladly have done so? How easy would it have been for him to deny that “Jesus lived but a few years previous to his day; that the wise men came to worship him; that Herod massacred the children; that Jesus healed the sick, and the lame, and raised the dead; that he was baptized by John, and that the Holy Ghost descended upon him like a dove; that he foretold his own sufferings and resurrection; that he was betrayed and forsaken by his own disciples; that he was crowned with thorns, and a robe put upon him; that he drank the vinegar and the gall; that he was scourged and crucified; that he was seen by his disciples after his resurrection, and showed them his hands that were pierced!” How easily might Celsus have denied these accounts, had he suspected the genuineness and authenticity of the records! But he expressly mentions and admits all these facts!
How easily might Porphyry, in the middle of the third century, and Julian in the fourth, have denied the existence or the authenticity of the books of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles, had they not known that they existed, or had they questioned their genuineness or authenticity! But they quote them freely as genuine and authentic records. As said by Lardner, “Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian, bear a fuller and more valuable testimony to the books of the New Testament, and to the facts of the evangelical history, and to the affairs of Christians, than all our other witnesses besides. They proposed to overthrow the arguments for Christianity: they aimed to bring back to Gentilism those who had forsaken it, and to put a stop to the progress of Christianity by the farther addition of new converts; but in those designs they had very little success in their own times, and their works, composed and published in the early days of Christianity, are now a testimony in our favor, and will be of use in the defense of Christianity to the latest ages.”
When we think of the extensive learning and acknowledged acuteness of these renowned apostles of infidelity — when we reflect that they lived in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles — when we look at the many considerations leading to the conviction that they could not have been imposed upon as to the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures — when we remember how determined and inveterate were their malice and opposition, and how untiring their efforts to subvert Christianity, and yet that they never dreamed of questioning that these books were written by the persons to whom they were ascribed, or that they contained an honest and faithful statement of real events as they occurred — when we look at all these facts, we almost blush for the arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity of those modern infidels, who have stigmatized these sacred books as fictions or forgeries. Let them first prove that all history of all nations is an illusive cheat; that Homer never sung in Greece; that Cesar never reigned in Rome, and that Cromwell never rebelled in England — till then, let them not think of denying, without the blush of shame, the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament.