Historians will benefit by trusting the historical
veracity of the Bible. Even though these quotes are a bit older than most would like, they remain true in their statements.
"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible has been
progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the
accuracy of numerous details."
W.F. Albright, The
Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Revell, 1935), p. 127.
"The interval 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 (New Testament has) 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."
Sir Frederick Kenyon, The Bible
and Archeology (New York: Harper, 1940), pp. 288,289
"It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever
controverted a biblical passage."
Nelson Glueck,
Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society, 1969), p. 31
"To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of
classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient
period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."
John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 29
“Careful comparison of the New Testament with
inscriptions and other early independent evidence has confirmed their primary
claims . . . Competent historical scholarship must regard the New Testament
documents as coming from the first century and as reflecting primary-source
testimony about the person and claims of Jesus.” John Warwick
Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976),
pp. 31,34.
It is important for us to study history...but to me, we also need to be faithful
to the Almighty who gave us the Bible, and trust HIM over the ever- changing
opinions and popularity of what men (or women) might think or say.
Gleason Archer Jr. puts it better:
"...the only alternatives available to us as we confront the Scriptures:
either they are inerrant, or else we are."
Gleason L.
Archer, Jr. "A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction" (Chicago:
Moody Bible Institue, revised 1994) p. 31
And a well-respected scholar once noted the acceptance of Faith and
History, stating,
"It is, indeed, difficult to restrict a discussion of the New Testament
writings to the purely historical plane; theology insists on breaking in.
But that is as it should be; history and theology are inextricably intertwined
in the gospel of our salvation, which owes its external and universal validity
to certain events which happened in Palestine when Tiberius ruled the Roman
Empire."
F.F. Bruce in April 1959, as found in The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 14th
reprint 1980), pp.5-6.
It seems that history is becoming a category of expertise that is once again contracting, and as a result, society forgets the past, falls into moral decay, and repeats the mistakes of the past to its own peril and fatal consequences. If one would even arrive at a level of competence in grasping historical literary testimony, skillfully gleaning facts and exercising cognitive processes that modern education steers the collective away from doing, so much past and present will open up and a greater state of awareness is achieved, and faith in the Bible as accurate and true and faith in Christ Jesus as 100% truthful and good, as well as being LORD and Savior is easily affirmed.
The historical literary testimony tells us that the
Apostles of Jesus used Hebrew manuscripts of an older date than the Greek
Septuagint (LXX) as their primary texts. Biblical Scholarship has
often lamented of their confusion on this issue for the last 100 years, asking
"did the apostles rely only on the LXX or a variant copy of it",
because they are unwilling to believe the historical testimony of a translator
who held and viewed these Greek and older Hebrew manuscripts 300 years after
the last Apostle of Jesus died.
"The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is
evident, by the apostles and evangelists.
Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his
quotations from the Hebrew… in the words used on the cross itself, “Eli, Eli,
lama sabachthani,” which is by interpretation “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” not, as it is given by the Septuagint, “My God, my God, look upon
me, why hast thou forsaken me?” and many similar cases.
I do not say this in order to aim a blow at the 70 translators; but I
assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs. Wherever
the 70 agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that
translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had
found in the Hebrew.
And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many
things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which
are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these [still] exist
[in our own day] in the Hebrew.
Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from
the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our
controversy is at an end."
Justin’s Apology against Rufinius, Book 2.34
We must also remember, that Jerome, a 4th Century A.D. scholar who
translated the Bible into Latin,the Latin Vulgate, probably held copies of the New Testament that
were almost exclusively from the first century A.D. sources as well, being only
350 or less years removed from the 47 -57 A.D. compositions of those
works.
Jerome, himself, handled some of these
same pre-Septuagint manuscripts of Isaiah, pre-dating the LXX's completion
prior to the ascension of Herod the Great. By his own testimony, Jerome
says that his Hebrew copies that he was handling, were those that pre-dated
even our extant Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll now on display in Israel, dating
to at least 150 B.C. and possibly as old as 250 B.C. For him to say
this, there would have been a clear distinction in the difference of the Hebrew
epigraphy. For which aid, he sought out the best Hebrew expert of his day
to learn more than just an expanded version of what he would have called
"modern hebrew" in the 4th century A.D....but an "ancient
Hebrew" of the 4th to 5th century B.C. as well.
This is
accessibility to oldest manuscripts and their copies would be still yet another reason to trust the translationof the New Testament Gospels as accurate; and
this is better understood when we have a more well-rounded understanding in history
and language development in the relevant period of discussion.
In regard to the New Testament (NT) works, even in the First century we have so many copies being produced, that manuscript families branched out and they were compared one to another often, as well as back to their original source. By example, in Ephesus of Asia, from the introduction of the Book of Revelation in late 53 A.D. to the Apostle
John's death in ca. 97-98 A.D., there were many copies made of Revelation
(using this one NT book by example) and copies of copies that branched out.
At one point, as Irenaeus addresses in Against Heresies book 5.30.1-2,
there was the issue of just one slip of the pen or a lacunae that had to be
corrected regarding a number (6), in order that a wrong concept of 616 could be
corrected, and the copies either destroyed or amended to the correction.
In fact, because of Irenaeus' boast of how that any having questions about the
manuscript could simply go to Ephesus and ask John for verification, we know that Revelation
existed for many years prior to John's death, and that John was fully
accessible and in his right mind at all times to offer veracity to the 666
instead of the 616 one manuscript branch was promoting before that scribal error was chased down and stopped
cold.
By 392 A.D.ff., if Jerome possessed a first century New Testament copy of a
letter or book to translate, he may have possessed not only first century copies, but in regard to even it being a first century copy, it still may have been passed through as many as
16 copyists from the original in as little as its first 40 years from the
master first copy from which those others were generated afterwards.
We must historically consider the explosive and exponential growth
of Christianity from a figure of a few thousands in the 30s to that of a couple
millions by the 90s A.D. (though chiefly among slaves, followed by that of
sailors, farmers, and soldiers), and the reasonable assumption that we can
perhaps calculate no less than one manuscript per 1000 Christians
would give us no less than 3,000 probable manuscripts at the utmost bare minimum of each of the
most popular books and letters of the New Testament in Churches and designated
locations by the early 90s while the Apostle John was still yet alive. Each of these works were treated as more precious than gold, and closely guarded by Presbyters and bishops in their respective Churches as "holy" and set apart in a most revered manner. Not all works were uniformly in all places at the first, however; and by the mid to late
2nd Century A.D., the New Testament works most certainly were virtually universal in the Roman
Empire, at least.
The NT references most clearly used in the First Century Christian in Rome and used regionally there, we know from that book
we call as First Clement, which was based out of Rome, and these at minimum were : The Gospel of
Luke, the Gospel of Mark, Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephesians, and I
Peter.
Clement in 64 A.D. Rome, apparently did not possess such a copy of Matthew,
Greek or Aramaic, and did not quite know the full context of the use the
prophecy the way the Apostles (including John in Ephesus and Phillip in
Phrygia) apparently did. This tells us that Rome's Churches took
the position, under Clement, of first being communicated with -- or they would
not communicate to -- since Rome was a vast central metropolis so as to take
all the Roman Christian's own focus. This also tells us that the Roman Churches
were, in effect, more or less isolated from the outside world during the reign of Nero and especially during his persecutions, and that in this point in history, Rome's christian Churches were not likely
to intervene in other bishoprics until late in the second century (with the one exception of Corinth, because so many of its evangelists were based out of and first funded from Corinth, as was the case with Corinth's Churches funding and evangelizing Christianity being preached into the province of Asia).
Although it has been taught that it appears that only the first Greek translations of Matthew survived
well beyond the First Century, it is obvious that Ignatius of Antioch
and other bishops of the region (as late as 107 A.D.) still had the Aramaic
original of Matthew in a copied form entering also into the early Second
Century as well. Further, the Christians of the Syriac and Iraq Middle East (including that of Lebanon and parts of Turkey) are those who have kept the Aramaic language of the Scriptures from the times of Jesus. For being a witness of the One True Church, they are being targeted and killed by a criminal usurper in the U.S. Presidency and fellow Muslim butchers like John "might as well be a Muslim Heinrich Himmler" Brennan misusing the United States Central Intelligence Agency to genocide these innocent victims, as if attempting to erase the memory of Jesus Christ from history. The Gospel According to Matthew is apparently one that the Devil indeed hates beyond measure, apparently.
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch of Syria wrote in Aramaic; and the copy of Matthew
in historical perspective, was directed to the saints that spoke Aramaic
fluently. Ignatius wrote primarily to the Asian Churches who were guided
by John for prayerful support, upon Ignatius' own arrest. It was to Asia
that help and counsel was sought from, by Ignatius, not Rome (or its bishop
there).
Hundreds of years before a split, there was already an East/ West division in
Christianity between the Aramaic and non-Aramaic speaking peoples.
Matthew's Gospel, in how it was accepted and distributed at the first,
highlights this detail.
Matthew was written for and eventually distributed to those of the Syriac
influence churches from Jerusalem (to Babylonia and points East) to Damascus to
Antioch to the province of Asia in western Turkey, and all points in between;
amongst hostile, and friendly, witnesses who also were there to have seen many
of the events....some in the hundreds of thousands, in their own dialect.
Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna of
Asia, who was a disciple of the Apostle John and a bishop placed in
Smyrna by that same Apostle John, spoke as to the matter of the veracity of
Christianity in its written form which we have later labeled as "The New
Testament."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter
10,
selective statements from points 1 and 2
1. The Church, though dispersed through our the
whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and
their disciples this faith:
2. As I have already observed, the Church, having
received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole
world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.
She also believes these points [of doctrine]
just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims
them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she
possessed only one mouth.
For, although the languages of the world are
dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.
For the Churches which have been planted in Germany
do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor
those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya,
nor those which have been established in the central regions of the
world.
Nor will any one of the rulers in the
Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach
doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on
the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury
on the tradition.
For the faith being ever one and the same, neither
does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any
addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
Most scholars are deficient in the proper and full
reading of Irenaeus. For example, by their most popular use of even referencing him, they oft cite him as the authority for dating John's
Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings. Why? Perhaps they
are too busy copying the end notes of their colleagues...perhaps
they are too busy...perhaps philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise,
and academic truths are as intangible as a good dinner conversation.
Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus,
and a second generation witness from John the Apostle. When discussing
Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of
development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.
Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the
Empire in (some say 178- 181, others 180 - 181 A.D)., Christianity clearly was an organized, developed, and
communicating religious system. Germany communicates with Egypt and
Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy. Gaul
communicates with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces
communicate one with another, and testify faithfully that history - tradition -
faith that has been passed down to them from the Apostles.
And what NT documents are communicated them by no
later than 180 or 181 A.D.? If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations in
Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians,
Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.
It is impossible, if Christianity had any myths in
history or tradition up to this point, to have had such a uniform consistency
of the Faith throughout the Empire. There is no doubt about it...the
libraries of Caesar were thoroughly checked, the places of the NT visited, the
rolls of the bishops unfurled, and Christianity, 100 percent, was found true
and accurate historically and in the very legal sense of truthful as well.
Let me point out that NT manuscript families,
like the Patmos family of manuscripts, tell us that the NT is clearly 95%
or better a word for word transmission of the ancient text as it probably
was. The majority of the 5% of the grey area, is quite often simply
defined as either an expanded translation upon the Greek or a work to
this effect to convey the passage more effectively. We can
literally cut the 5% by 60-70%, and then again by another half until we reach
the same 40 lines consisting of less than 400 words that are known to be
added in to the texts, having once been marginal notes, with the exception of a
word or two here or there that do not change the theology or the essential
meaning of the text where they occur, by simple inter-familial comparisons.
Further, where any translation preceding a time period of Vaticanus or
Sinaiticus (or what have you) is questioned, we can go to early patristics and
see how they phrased the same quote.
It is known that where the Apostolic texts differ from the much later Masoretes
in quoting the Hebraic Old Testament texts, the Apostles appear to have
followed a manuscript tree that was more closer to Aramaic (if we follow the
second century quotations in translation to Latin and Greek by Irenaeus) and
first sources, such as the Ezra era translation of Hebrew Scriptures
scribed by Hillel -- if I understand correctly -- that was brought to Rome, and
cited by Josephus.
Those same copies of that master copy of the Temple,
"Now that Scripture, which is laid up in the
temple, informs us..." (Antiq. 3.1.7, Whiston)
which language means that Scroll of not only the Torah but all biblical books later canonized in the 90s as holy, and would have included the Psalms and the
prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah (etc.), those same works which were possessed by and quoted by
Matthew (while he was in Jerusalem in A.D. 55-56) and Luke (Paul's fellow
evangelist and physician, while at Corinth of Achaia in A.D. 50).
In Josephus Wars of the Jews, 7.5.7., it is clear that the Temple Scroll is that same First master copy or Imprimis
Torah Scroll and Scriptures (from the days of Ezra). It may actually have been the very collection Hillel brought up from the Jews at Babylonia, if Oral Torah's historical literary testimony is to be believed. It was that Master Copy, once made available for all Jews from circa 3 B.C. (with the arrival of Hillel, until its 70 A.D. capture) that went to Rome.
Josephus reiterates a statement of writings, now regarding the book of Joshua also:
"Now, that the day was lengthened at this thee, and was longer than
ordinary, is expressed in the books laid up in the temple."
(Antiq., 5.1.17, Whiston)
"That the duration of the day was prolonged and exceeded the usual on that
occasion is disclosed in the writings that were present in the temple" (Alternate translation of same passage)
The authority of Josephus as an historian on historical (and sometimes textual) data does NOT exceed
the Bible, and is subordinate to the Biblical text ... but his writings
should still always be readily considered as a reliable on hand supplemental
Of interest, the Apostle Paul traveled about with many scrolls of Scripture with his entourage, and occasionally had to entrust them at this or that location while on his missionary journeys. By example, the Apostle Paul stored his Scripture scrolls and
parchments at what he probably thought would be a central location as 2 Timothy 4:13 appears to infer. Because of circumstances and necessity to reach Jerusalem quickly by Pentecost (just prior to his final arrest) he left them behind. Scrolls were large and bulky objects. At the time he wrote 2 Timothy, Paul was in Rome in a hired or rented house at his own expense, and under house arrest. The Apostle Paul, contrary to popular and perhaps tourist trap initiated belief, was not in a dungeon
in Acts 28. Further, in the way Paul requests his scrolls be brought to him, it was not unrealistic to request them. Indeed, we may even reasonably infer that the Apostle Paul may well have been in the
habit to rotate one or several personally owned Scripture scrolls at a time, delivered and or taken by messenger or an ambassador (a protected status under Roman Law) or "angel" for the sake of
convenience.
There may have been times where one could have been
"mailed" by carriage in Asia and certain developed areas / provinces
in the Roman Empire in this era, but that method isn't likely to have been
employed (being deemed a wasteful use of funds). Instead, manuscripts or
scrolls having been wax sealed and encrusted with in similar manner as the
Romans and thereby being granted legal protections and even
Roman escort under certain circumstances, were entrusted to guardians who
were recognized as "ambassadors" and protected by Roman law.
The Christian guardians who delivered manuscript scrolls were generally deacons and
deaconesses or presbyters or even bishops. Again, generally, these were called both
messengers and "angels" and took their task to deliver sealed scrolls
unopened very seriously. Because the Bible declares that "in the
mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall every word be established", so too would
there be a religious legal requirement in the transport of such manuscripts,
and we would expect a re-verification was quite often both done and
commended.
Supplement: Historic Dates of New Testament Authorship
Letter or Work When Written Written in / from
Jude Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel
James Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel
Galatians A.D. 48 Philippi, Greece
Gospel of Luke A.D. 50 Corinth, Achaia
I Thessalonians February - July, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia
I Corinthians July - November, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia
Revelation Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 Patmos, Aegean
Romans October - November, A.D. 53 Corinth, Achaia
Titus February, A.D. 54 Troas, Aegean Sea
Colossians May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel
I Timothy May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel
II Thessalonians August - December, A.D. 54 Ephesus, Asia
Gospel of Matthew May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 Jerusalem, Israel
Philemon A.D. 56 Rome, Italy
II Timothy October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy
Ephesians October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy
Philippians February - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
I Peter March - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
Gospel of Mark June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
II Peter June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
Acts of the Apostles July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
Hebrews July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy
I John
(severed intro to Gospel of John)
August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia
Gospel of John August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia
2,3 John A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 Ephesus, Asia
