Many Infallible Proofs. Dr. Henry M. Morris
Читать онлайн книгу.
and so on. Events referred to in these epistles frequently tie in with the earlier histories of these men as recorded in the gospels and in Acts. For example, Peter refers to his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18; Matt. 17:1-5), and Paul to his stoning at Lystra (2 Cor. 11:25; Acts 14:19). Examples of this sort could be added almost without number. Linguistic evidence also is consistent with the traditional authorship. For example, the vocabularies of the Gospel of John, the three epistles of John, and the Revelation are all strikingly similar (note use of "the Word" as a name of Christ — John 1:1; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13).
In addition to these and other internal evidences, archaeological studies have provided still further confirmation of the New Testament writings and their authenticity. The Book of Acts is especially important in this connection. Dealing as it does with the spread of the gospel in the first 30 years after Christ, it incorporates a large number of references to places, times, customs, and events of the Roman, Greek, and Jewish worlds of that time. If the book were an accumulation of uncertain traditions compiled long after the events, or if its writer, Luke, were merely a careless reporter, there would exist an abundance of opportunity for factual mistakes in the book.
So far is such from being the case, however, that the greatest of all New Testament archaeologists, Sir William Ramsay, who made the most extensive studies anyone has ever undertaken on the authenticity of these data recorded in Acts, finally said (even though he began his studies as a skeptic), "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense…. In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[5]
It might be noted in passing that this same very careful and accurate historian, Luke, was also the author of the gospel that carries the fullest account of Christ's virgin birth and resurrection.
The other books of the New Testament do not, of course, lend themselves as readily to archaeological investigation as well as does the Book of Acts. Nevertheless, the description of Jerusalem and other cities and regions of Judea and Samaria, references to customs and political situations, and many other such incidental allusions have frequently been confirmed and illustrated by archaeological and historical studies. On the contrary, no statement in the New Testament has to this date been refuted by an unquestioned find of science or history. This in itself is a unique testimony to the amazing accuracy and authenticity of the New Testament records.
Finally, it is important to note that the New Testament was not written in the classical Greek language as scholars once thought it should have been. Instead, it was written in the common language of that era, the Koine (i.e., "common") Greek, which had been actually forgotten until it was rediscovered by archaeology in modern times.
Implications of Authenticity of Documents
Once we establish the fact that the books of the New Testament are authentic historical documents, written by contemporaries and often eyewitnesses of the events they describe, we are then able to examine the events and personages with genuine confidence that we can determine their real nature and significance. We are not dealing with elusive theological or philosophical questions at all, but with matters of fact, determinable by objective investigation.
Such an investigation is still quite independent of the question whether or not these documents are divinely inspired. Rather, we are concerned at this point whether, as valid historical documents, they describe the person and work of Christ as divine in origin and essence, or rather as truly and only human.
If indeed He is shown forth in the writings as deity, then a number of options may still be considered. Were the various writers involved in a monstrous plot, with the purpose of establishing themselves as leaders in some new religious or political movement? Or, if not, were they merely under some kind of delusion, thinking that Christ was God when really He was not? If they had been deceived in this way, did Jesus intentionally deceive them? Or was He also deceived, either by His own enthusiasm or by the persuasion of others, that He was God? All of these possibilities can be evaluated by a study of the writings themselves, once they are recognized as authentic in date and authorship. Thus, we are in position to decide objectively whether or not Jesus Christ truly is the only Son of God and the only way of salvation, as Christians believe.
On the other hand, it is never really possible to free one's mind from subjective factors on an issue such as this. Even if we can show that all these witnesses agree completely in their testimony to the deity of Christ, a person may still decide on his own initiative not to believe it.
To any argument, an objection or further question can always be devised if the objector is clever enough. Even if he is backed into a corner from which there seems no logical escape, he can always get angry and avoid the issue, insist on delaying a decision until he can think more about it, take refuge in the fact that many others are unbelievers, insist that all such reasoning and logic are unrelated to the central issue of relevance, or else just change the subject. Anyone who is predisposed to accept and believe solid Christian evidence will find it in satisfying abundance along this line of study.
Sincerity of the New Testament Writers
The general authenticity of the New Testament documents as to date and authorship can, in view of the foregoing, be considered as established. Furthermore, the general accuracy of their records has been adequately confirmed by linguistic and archaeological studies, as well as by their own internal consistency.
Certain skeptics, however, have sought to escape the impact of their portrait of Christ and the gospel by charging the writers with fraud. That is, for purposes of their own, perhaps to establish themselves at the head of a new religious or political movement, they conspired to produce the marvelous tale of a supernatural Savior and King, whose representatives they were and whose authority they were to exercise in the world's affairs.
Such an incredible supposition, however, can commend itself only to those who will grasp at straws. Several considerations mentioned below are sufficient to discredit this notion:
1 The "conspiracy" involved a large number of people, of such diversity as to render such collaboration almost completely impossible. There were at least eight different writers involved, not to mention a great number of associated colleagues, and these lived and wrote at widely scattered times and places.
2 Evidences of collusion are notably absent in the writings themselves. Each writer gives his own independent witness, writing from his own perspective. Often, in fact, they appear on the surface to contradict each other, and such contradictions are resolved only by very close and careful examination and cross-examination of their testimonies.
3 Rather than confining their writings to generalities and to private events in their own lives, which would make it, of course, more difficult to detect error or fraud, the records teem with references to public events, places, dates, and other matters of accessible knowledge.
4 A candid reading of the New Testament books surely does not suggest fraud or hypocrisy in even the slightest degree. Not only are such sins scathingly rebuked, but the very atmosphere of the writings is pervaded with the feeling of sincere conviction on the part of the authors. If the writings are actually wicked deceptions, these men were undoubtedly the greatest masters at deception who ever lived.
5 The crowning proof of sincerity is, of course, the fact that the New Testament authors were willing to suffer and die for their convictions. They did indeed "suffer the loss of all things," and all except John died as a martyr because of their testimony. Men may occasionally be willing to die for an unworthy cause which is false, but never if they know it to be so. It is impossible that all these would gladly sacrifice their lives for what they knew to be a gross deception.
The Sanity of the Writers
Granted, then, that the writers of the new Testament were sincere men, firmly convinced of the truth of what they wrote, could they have been simply mistaken? Were they subject to some form of mass delusion or hysteria? Were they either highly unstable, easily convinced by their own emotions that they were seeing supernatural manifestations, or else were they gullible, deluded by sleight-of-hand artistry and clever persuasion?