“How is it that a volume you can hold in your hand has been instrumental in the rise and fall of nations, the life and death of civilizations and Christians believe the salvation or damnation of multitudes of souls?” writes Elwell and Yarbrough authors of Encountering the New Testament: a Historical and Theological Survey (2). What document could these authors have been referring to? The answer is the New Testament. These 27 books, which make up this one grand work, written over a period of 40 years in the first century have caused nations to fall and rise, along with the life change of men and women throughout history. The Bible is truly the greatest book ever written. Christians claim that it is the Word of God, while Muslims claim The Bible has been distorted over thousands of years, while others claim it is a work of fiction-which is it? This is a question that requires an answer. The New Testament is a historically reliable document that should be studied because of its cultural, historical and eternal implications.
Non-Christian, University professor Allan Bloom states that the Bible is the foundation of cultural literacy. Elwell and Yarbrough write about how we get much of our American values from the New Testament, everything from “love for others” to self-sacrificial living. (6-7) they go as far as to say, “No culturally literate person can afford to disrespect the profound insights that the New Testament offers into the human condition” (Elwell and Yarbrough 7). The Bible and more specifically the New Testament is essential to understanding American culture. To be Biblically illiterate is to ultimately be culturally illiterate. One anonymous quote says on the matter, “’Biblical Illiteracy’ is like a poison, wreaking havoc in the lives of individuals, in our churches, and in our communities” (Copeland). A lose in understanding of the New Testament will lead to a loss of the culture and decay of values that were meant for American society.
Not only is Biblical illiteracy a problem because it leads to cultural illiteracy but it has led to historical illiteracy. The skeptic of the New Testament must realize a few things before they make their critique. First, they must realize that, as “Encountering the New Testament” (Elwell and Yarbrough 11) and many other defenders of Biblical inherency highlight that there are thousands of manuscripts even some in the original language, which is Greek. We can be sure first, that what these New Testament authors wrote what they meant to write. This can give us confidence that any differences we find between manuscripts, which some have been found, are found either through spelling or from the slip of the pen of the scribes. Even in the face of these supposed “problems”, we don’t hold scribes to be perfect men and there are overwhelming amounts of manuscripts that are the same word for word.
Second, there is hardly any historical document with the overwhelming amount of eye witness (or second hand witness) testimony, that the New Testament has. There are very few documents from the first century that have been so well preserved. Third, while there are a handful of authors whom the works of the New Testament are compiled from, the Bible as a whole which compose one cohesive message and stance on every teaching it expounds.
Forsaking the historical value of the New Testament also has led to ignorance as to the identity of figures like Jesus and less true consideration to his teachings, which range from “Love your enemies” (The Holy Bible English Standard Version, Matthew 7:43) to “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”” (John 8:24). Both of these teachings have major implications on how we live our lives. It is illogical to take the moral teachings of Jesus and leave the implications of his teachings about his death for the sins of humanity and his victorious resurrection and the promise of eternal life given through faith in Him (John 2:20-22, John 3:16, John 10:14-18 among many other places).
Biblical illiteracy obviously has implications on us culturally, historically and believers would say, eternally. The only way that these effects, which are already being seen, can be reversed is to actually study the Bible as it was recorded. These men obviously wrote what they had seen, believed and ultimately were confident enough to be martyred for. There are uncountable numbers of people throughout history who have died to hold what we in America have tossed aside like it’s the last edition of the IPhone. The New Testament is not something and allowed to challenge our views on culture, history and even life after death, which were by many eyewitnesses whom “could not help speaking of what they had seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).
The New Testament has had far reaching effects in its influence on the world. The New Testament should be studied as a historically accurate document because the authors who wrote it provide accurate and reliable eyewitness accounts. The accounts themselves have remained reliably preserved through manuscripts and because testimony of non-Christian historians provides evidence in support of its accuracy.
Many of the writers of the New Testament were accurate eyewitnesses to what was seen. The word “many” is used because there were a couple of the Gospel writers, Mark and Luke to be precise, who are not eye witnesses to the life of Jesus they record. In fact, only John and Matthew were disciples of Jesus during his ministry. But, believers need not worry about this bit of information for Mark and Luke drew there information from eye witness testimony, such as the writers of the rest of the New Testament books (Peter, Matthew, John etc…). The opening of Luke tells us he set out to investigate and interview witnesses to make an “orderly account” (Luke 1:1-4). While, history tells us that Mark was a disciple of Peter (an eyewitness) and likely got information directly from him (Carson and Moo 169-197).
But interestingly, these men have some amazing testimonies that actually give strength to the validity of their accounts. Some of these men were Matthew, who would leave behind his career as a tax collector, Paul who went from a persecutor of the church to its greatest missionary, and James, the half-brother of Jesus. James is described as a nonbeliever-“For not even his brothers believed in him” (The Holy Bible John 7:5). James is the same man who, after the mystery that left the tomb of Jesus’ empty, would go onto to call him “Lord” in the opening verse of his epistle (The Holy Bible James 1:1). What did these men experience that so changed their outlook and emboldened their witness? Was it an empty tomb or was it all a conspiracy? What they record will no doubt shed some light on this.
“The New Testament is by far the best-attested writing of antiquity” (Elwell and Yarbrough 11). Now that a look has been given to the writers themselves, now the question must be raised, “Have changes been made?” Tracy Sumner writes in How Did We Get the Bible?
“As of today, thousands-estimates range between four thousand and six thousand- of handwritten copies of the Greek New Testament have been discovered, as well as thousands more in other languages. Some of these manuscripts are complete Bibles, and others are complete books or pages. The oldest of these fragments-many of which are in museums around the world, including many in Europe and North America-date back to as far as AD 130, with many others dated between the second and sixteenth centuries” (Sumner 58).
Sumner goes on to write that “The New Testament we hold in our hands is the same one written nearly two thousand years ago” (Sumner 60). We can know, based on these manuscripts that the New Testament been well preserved. What the authors of the New Testament intended to say is what we have recorded.
Literacy criticism is a style of Biblical interpretation which seeks to study the Bible, a part from its historical context and implications for its literary significance and meaning. As renowned New Testament scholars D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo write, literary criticism is “a catchall designation for contemporary approaches to the gospels functions as pieces of literature” (115). This was predominate view in the 1800-1970 and very much exists today in one form or another (115). Syntax, word choice and event order matter much more to the literary critics of the New Testament then if the words or events actually took place.
While study of syntax and vocabulary of the New Testament has its place in study, the problem with literary criticism is that what it actually sets out to do, it inevitably fails to do. What literary critics practically ask is, “What does this mean to the reader?” If all meaning lies with the reader of the text, then there is no true meaning, or true message being communicated. This broad interpretative method actually closes out the possibility of any meaning, or truth from this text. The desire to interpret the New Testament that way comes more from a place of doubt toward the text and less from a true heart for interpretation.
It could be argued that no document that has had a greater effect on Western culture has been the Constitution of the United States. Both the Constitution and the New Testament, while having a profound influence on culture, are not without distortion. The existence of so many political parties and lobbying groups are certainly evidence that many see distortions in the Constitution (or at least how its principles are applied). But, distortion doesn’t mean inaccuracy. The Constitution has been quoted by other to support horrible crimes committed in the name of freedom. The argument that people have used the Bible to support the ideas of war, slavery and oppression of women, is invalid because in most of those cases what we see is a distortion of the texts out of there context. For example when the word “slave”, is used it is referring to someone working as a maid to work off a debt, it was not historically the same thing done during the Civil War. Also, the “oppression of women” can be argued as to what principles the Bible teaches about gender roles and whether this is oppression along with how this plays out within the New Testament context. Also, the Bible nowhere explicitly condones genocide. This is an example of distortion of context. Distortion of history causes ignorance and ignorance can be the single most dangerous thing to society. This is why study to the New Testament, just as much as the constitution, is so important.
Some have claimed, such as Dan Brown in his work, The Da Vinci Code, that the current New Testament was compiled by a church council under the leadership of Constantine. For some reason the ideas expanded in this work of fiction have polluted discussion about the New Testament. Da Vinci Code believers claim that the church in the third century put in books that supported what the doctrines they wanted and left out the ones that they did not agree with them. An example of one of these books is the Gospel of Mary which was “particularly Gnostic”, meaning it taught that Jesus was not the Son of God (Sumner 79). What of these councils? Did they really decide what was in the Bible and what was not? Testimony of the early church (before the third century) would be the only way to determine this.
It can be seen as far back as Paul in the early 60’s AD quoting from the New Testament canon- specifically the book of Luke. Paul would quote Luke in his first letter to Timothy. 1 Timothy 5:18 reads, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘the laborer deserves his wages’”. First one must take notice that Paul uses the Greek word “graffe” to refer to Scripture (the same word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 to refer to the Old Testament as being inspired by God) along with a quote from the book of Deuteronomy (Old Testament) and a direct quote from Luke 10:7. The original Greek for both of these passages read, “ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ” which translates, “Worker deserved his wages”. Most scholars consider Luke to be written about the same time as the letters to Timothy, so this is interesting that both authors are aware of the same phrase and Paul would refer to this phrase, obviously recorded somewhere at the time (most likely by Luke), as “Scripture”.
Some additional internal evidence that the New Testament books were already widely embraced by the first century can be in the second epistle of Peter. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter uses the word “graffe” which is used in 1 Timothy 5:18 to refer to the words of the Old Testament and Jesus in reference to Paul. Writing of how distort “other Scriptures”, which alludes to his belief that Paul was in fact a divinely author. This is once again that even within the first century the early church knew what would be considered authoritative.
There is also external evidence that refutes this idea. Early church Father Polycarp and his Letter to the Philippians, dated just 20 to 45 years after the last book of the New Testament was composed, it can be argued alludes to every New Testament book and refers to the words of Paul referred to as Scripture, that the church has always known what was considered “scripture” or what was considered the New Testament, it was just not until the 3rd century the need to recognize these works became clear. To the believer, these councils did not make these books God’s Word, but confirmed in what has always been the Word of God and the testimony of their Savior- Jesus Christ (Thiel Polycarp’s, The Holy Bible 2 Peter 3:16).
There is additional evidence even from the pens of non-biblical writers as well. One of these examples is Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In his book Antiquities 18:3:3 writes of, “Jesus…doer of wonderful works…He was [the] Christ and when Pilate…condemned him to the cross…for he appeared to them [those that loved him at the first] alive again the third day…and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” Josephus was not a believer but a Jewish historian! He is himself confirming the testimony of Jesus that not only did he exist but he worked miracles, suffered died one a cross and was seen alive on the third day just as Paul and the writers of the Gospels record. This is unbiased evidence that the events the New Testament writers records, specifically concerning Jesus, are historical.
Lastly, someone could argue with part of the premise, which is that not only is the New Testament historical, but that it is history with implication. There are many, even some within extreme camps of “historical criticism” who would say that the Bible can be studied for its historical value apart from its theological and worldview implications. Historical criticism, in other words, uses the historical methods without historical convictions (Elwell and Yarbrough 145).
In response to this, I see no better rebuttal then the words of popular Christian author C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity and some might question his argument as a straw man, the point is clear, to miss the theological teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, is to miss their entire purpose. Lewis writes: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Jesus:
‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is 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, 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend too (pg 52).
Lewis’ analogy is the ground on which we all stand today, with a choice to make, “Is Jesus liar, lunatic or Lord?” Is Jesus a good teacher, or a picture of evil? Is Jesus the slaughtered Son of God, bearing the sins of humanity on his shoulders and alive today from resurrection? One thing can be sure, to miss the message to restore a rebellious humanity to their God forever through His perfect work, is to miss the mission of Jesus given in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (The Holy Bible Luke 19:10) and to miss Jesus message and his mission, is to miss Jesus himself.
Feel the gravity of the words of Jesus. His words, as recorded through the New Testament have had profound effects on all of history. His words have defined the culture in which Americans and many nations have grown up and been formed in. His words carry with them eternal implications if found true. The apostle Paul said it well when he said that if the events the New Testament records are false and Jesus Christ has not risen, the hope of believers is in vain, but if the words of the New Testament are history, true in the miracles they record and the words they validate and the resurrection it celebrate, then we as Lewis’ makes clear, leave no other proper response then to fall on our faces and call Him Lord. The Christian’s hope is based not in fantasy, but in historical, recorded reality. Therefore, everyone should study the words of the New Testament with great reverence, sensitivity and humility. Those words are not just history, but history with implication. “The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book similar gravity, read with the gravity of a potential believer, it will remain unfurnished” (Elwell and Yarbrough 6).
Works Cited
Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York City: Doubleday 2003.
Copeland, Mark “Biblical Inherency”, Executable Outlines Executable Outlines Web. 1 Oct.
2013 http://executableoutlines.com/top/bibillit.htm
Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2005. Print
Elwell, Walter, and Robert Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and
Theological Survey. Baker Academic, 2013. Print.
Josephus. Antiquities. No Publisher, 94 A.D. Web. http://www.sacred-
texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
Lewis, Clive Staples. Lewis, Clive Staples. Mere Christianity. New York: HarborCollins, 2001.
Print.
Sumner, Tracy Macon. How Did We Get the Bible? Uhrichsville, Ohio: Barbour, 2009. Print
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Wheaton Illinois: Crossway, 2001. Print.
Thiel, Bob. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians with New Testament Scriptural Annotation
Cogwriter.com Web. 15 Oct. 2013
Turner, Nicholas, Gregory M Reichberg and Vesselin Popvski World Religions and Norms of
War. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2009. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).
Web. 4 Nov. 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment