014. Chapter 12 - The Inspiration of the Gospel Narratives

Chapter 12 - The Inspiration of the Gospel Narratives The Issue

“God has spoken unto us” (Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2). This is the fundamental proposition of Christianity. Everything which it offers to the world is based squarely upon this foundation. The Bible affirms repeatedly that it is the record of God’s revelation to men and offers the testimony of eyewitnesses as to the miraculous evidence accompanying these revelations. The modernists, on the contrary, offer two fundamental propositions: one, the position of the extreme skeptic; the other, that of his less radical comrade. The propositions are: (1) there is no God; (2) there is a God, but He has not spoken to man; the Bible is not the Word of God. No one has ever improved upon the Biblical analysis of the folly of the extreme radical position; both in brevity and in power it remains unexcelled: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” The atheist is utterly helpless to explain the universe or even his own personal existence; he remains helpless in the presence of death. But could anything be any more absurd than the second modernistic position that there is a God, but that He has not spoken to us? They admit the necessity of theism. They admit that the merest intelligence requires belief in the existence of God. They admit the need of man for a revelation. With great pathos and tearful anxiety, they proclaim their longing to find out something about God and the life after death. They blow out the light of revelation and then spend their days mumbling and fumbling around in the dark, trying to feel after God if haply they may find Him. The Alternatives

If there is a God, what kind of God is He, that He should not communicate with man? Does He lack the intelligence, or the power, or the love to communicate with man? What sort of God does the modernist worship? It is not surprising that he usually spells the word with a little “g”: “god”; his god is nothing more than a superman, powerless in the midst of the laws of nature. It is not surprising that there is a continual drift among modernists to the ultimate denial of the existence of God as a personal being. For who would be interested in a God who did not possess the power to speak to us, to reveal to us His Person and will and the way of life? Or a God who did not have the wisdom and knowledge to make known to us that which we could never discover for ourselves and which is so necessary to life here and hereafter? Or a God who, though He had all power and wisdom, was yet so lacking in love that He would not exert Himself to make known to man his possibilities, his obligations, his perils, and his destiny? The Fundamental Claim of the Bible The Bible reveals the existence and the will of God. It affirms that God knows; He loves; He is all-powerful; He has spoken to us; He has wrought our redemption, if we but obey Him. The New Testament declares itself to be the perfect, complete, and final revelation of God. The Gospel narratives form the essential foundation of the New Testament, for they give the historical records of the incarnation, and of the life, the teaching, and the will of Jesus, the Son of God. What is the evidence that these narratives are uniquely inspired, that they are the Word of God given to us by men who were guided in their writing by the Holy Spirit?

Implicit Claims of Gospel Writers The authors of the biographies of Jesus do the not make specific declaration of such inspiration. But a study of the narratives will show that such an implicit claim to miraculous guidance everywhere underlies the accounts. Two of the writers were apostles and the accounts themselves describe when and how they were endowed with miraculous information and power and how they gave proof of this gift. Moreover, the New Testament accounts affirm that leaders of the second generation were endowed with this same miraculous power by the laying on of the apostles’ hands. Thus, while the Gospels do not begin or end with the explicit declaration of the authors that they were directly inspired of God, they reveal the life of Jesus and in the course of this narrative declare that His apostles and other chosen leaders were so endowed. Such a manner of claiming inspiration is the most powerful that could be imagined, for it is anchored securely in the actual facts of history, instead of resting upon the declaration of the author.

Matthew was a tax collector of Galilee whom Jesus called to be one of His apostles. John, the son of Zebedee, was a young fisherman who had become a disciple of John the Baptist and became associated with Jesus in the early Judaean ministry, was called to be a disciple by the Sea of Galilee, and ordained an apostle later in Jesus’ ministry. We know but little concerning the character and activities of Matthew, but a strong and clear delineation of the character of John appears in the Gospel narratives and in the Book of Acts. Mark was a zealous young member of the Jerusalem church which often met in his mother’s home. He was associated with Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary tour. His desertion of the company caused Paul and Barnabas to part. That he later redeemed himself in the eyes of Paul is shown by his later association with Paul in Rome (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11). Luke was a Gentile, a physician of Greek descent, the companion of Paul on his second missionary journey from Troas onward, and the faithful associate and helper of Paul even during the years of his imprisonment at Caesarea and at Rome. The four books which these men have written to record the life of Jesus all bear distinctive traits of style. It is evident that the Holy Spirit permitted the personality of the human author to express itself when it was in harmony with the purpose of God. The unique inspiration of the authors guided them in the choice of material and, whenever necessary, in the manner of expression. Thus the same Spirit which guided Peter and the other apostles in the early proclamation of the message also guided these writers in the writing of this gospel. It is not surprising that they tell the same things and often in the same way and that they differ, at times, in the most unusual way. Thus did the Holy Spirit furnish unanimous testimony through diversity of personalities and expression. The fact that early Christian writers, in giving their testimony that these four biographies were actually written by the men whose names appear on our earliest manuscripts also testify that Mark wrote under the influence and direction of Peter, and the fact that Luke declares that he consulted the original witnesses (the apostles, Mary, James, the brother of the Lord, and others), solidly base these two documents upon the testimony of apostles and eyewitnesses. Matthew and John wrote of what they themselves saw, heard, and knew. “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life...that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (1 John 1:1-3). The facts were directly known by two of the authors, and easily obtained by the other two; the selection of facts and the manner of expression and arrangement needed the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Supernatural Information Imparted

Certain exceptions to this immediate knowledge are evident in the narratives, and they furnish strong proof of their divine inspiration. The authors do not explicitly declare they are inspired of God, but they calmly assume it. This is clearly seen when they deliberately relate things which no human being could know of himself without superhuman guidance. Mark at the close of his Gospel boldly declares what happened in ‘heaven after Jesus disappeared from the sight of the apostles as they stood on the Mount of Ascension. “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19). How could any mere man know what happened in the unseen world above without miraculous guidance? Mark states this without explanation or defense; he assumes divine inspiration. The Gospel writers tell of what happened in the wilderness when Jesus was tempted. No man was present to see or hear. They relate the intimate prayers of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Three men were only a stone’s throw distant, but they were asleep. How could they know what Jesus said to God in the agony of His soul? Did Jesus afterward tell them? Such a supposition does not seem to match the character of Jesus. The amazing thing about such accounts is that the authors boldly state such facts as these, without defending their statements, declaring their source of information, or even intimating any possibility of error. There is nothing in the literature of the world to parallel this. They did not need to state the source of their information or affirm and defend their miraculous information. They had stated in their narratives, in the mere course of unveiling the divine Person and ministry of Jesus, the fact that He miraculously endowed His immediate, chosen followers. This was enough. They did not need to add personal affirmations. They did not need to prove their inspiration to a church which had already received innumerable, indubitable evidences in the working of miracles by these same men who here write down for the ages the record of the life of Christ. The evidence which was sufficient for the early church must be sufficient for all the ages.

Supernatural Evidence Added

Professor Ropes admits that the early church in the second century had come to the conclusion that the New Testament was an infallible and divinely inspired document. But he holds that this belief grew up in the course of a century. This is short time indeed for such a development. Does anyone today declare Abraham Lincoln or George Washington to be a divine being, who worked miracles? Moreover, it is a gratuitous denial, without proof, of the explicit testimony of the New Testament writers. These men worked miracles in the presence of the church and the world. The early Christians accepted their writings as inspired of God, not as a growing conclusion of the second century, but as an immediate conviction the moment they were written and delivered to the churches. When Peter or Paul or any other of the inspired leaders preached, his word was accepted as inspired of God because he accompanied his proclamation with the miraculous evidence which could not be rejected. When they wrote down their messages for the churches, the written Word was received in exactly the same manner.

Conflict of Theory and Scripture The whole proposition of supposing that the Gospel writers copied from one another and searched around among “sources,” copying here and there a scrap of information or incorporating whole sections from earlier “sources,” is a flat denial of their own direct information or their native intelligence. They either had not seen and heard, or even talked with the original eyewitnesses, or they did not possess enough mother wit to write down what they had learned. How much more is it evident that the whole Two-source Theory denies absolutely the divine inspiration of the narratives! It is a most amazing thing how so many supposedly conservative scholars who claim to believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures have swallowed the entire Two-source Theory. Consider, for example, the description by Professor Hill of the process by which the earliest source (“Q”) arose: “We have already noted that the first things to be written concerning Jesus would be His sayings — both because they are not so easily remembered as His deeds, and because it is important to preserve their exact form. Matthew’s early training as a tax collector would accustom him to make memoranda: and it is very possible that, either when he was with Jesus or afterward, he made such a collection of sayings and naturally they would be in Hebrew — i.e., Aramaic, the language in which they were spoken” (Introduction to the Life of Christ., p. 112). This is a very moderate statement from a modernist who is not at all extreme. Now compare this picture of Matthew who was accustomed to jot down notes in his tax collecting business, following Jesus around with a papyrus roll taking down notes on His speeches and sermons, with the declaration of Jesus Himself as to how His words were to be preserved for the future ages: “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you” (John 14:26). “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:26, John 15:27). “How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that were to come” (John 16:13). Could anything be clearer or more powerful and impressive than these promises of Jesus that they are to be directly inspired to recall and perpetuate His words and will? Does someone suggest that all these quotations are from the Gospel of John? John’s testimony is entirely sufficient; but hear the testimony of Matthew: “Before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:18-20). These promises of Jesus declare that His apostles should be divinely inspired not merely to recall the past, but to unveil the future. The more one studies the Two-source Theory in contrast with the solemn promises of Jesus, the more he is compelled to conclude that it can not possibly be harmonized with faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and in the New Testament as the inspired revelation of God. A plain choice is demanded between a theory which has as its objective the denial of the fundamental claims of Christianity and which has as its foundation a heap of assumptions, and a faith which stands firm upon the promises and proof which Christ offers. The Testimony of Acts The Book of Acts furnishes the clinching evidence for the inspiration of the Gospel narratives, for it records how the promises of Jesus as to the inspiration of the apostles were fulfilled and bears testimony to the miraculous proof which accompanied the fulfillment. Luke opens his history of the founding of the church by recording the final promise which Jesus gave that His apostles should be miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit: “But ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5); “But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Luke then proceeds to record the fulfillment of this promise on the day of Pentecost and the prodigious miracles by which God proved its fulfillment. Every page of this great book offers cumulative evidence of the inspiration of the apostles and the leaders who were associated with them after having been miraculously endowed by the laying on of the apostles’ hands. Citations characteristic of the whole book are the statements concerning Paul at Iconium and at Ephesus: “Long time therefore they tarried there speaking boldly in the Lord, who bare witness unto the words of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands” (Acts 14:3); “All they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul” (Acts 19:10, Acts 19:11). The evidence from the Book of Acts reacts directly upon Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for two of these were apostles and the other two, associated leaders chosen by apostles. The insistent emphasis of Acts upon the divine inspiration of the Christian messengers makes the proving of this fact one of the major objectives of the book.

Affirmations of Revelation and Hebrews

Although the Gospels do not contain direct affirmations by the writers of their inspiration, they are a part of the New Testament and the affirmations of other writers constitute indirect affirmation by these who record the life of Christ. John signed the Book of Revelation and in it makes the most explicit claims to a direct revelation from God which he is recording. That the force of this should reflect upon the Gospel which he wrote is inescapable. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw” (Revelation 1:1, Revelation 1:2). The affirmation with which the Epistle to the Hebrews opens, places profound emphasis upon this great fact of the inspiration of both the old revelation and the new. With ponderous, resounding strokes, the author drives home the proof of this solid foundation of the whole Christian religion: “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high….How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? Which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will” (Hebrews 1:1-3; Hebrews 2:3, Hebrews 2:4). There is in the passage a most impressive declaration of the fact that God has spoken to man, both in the prophets and in His Son, who is His supreme messenger, and that the eyewitnesses were divinely inspired to proclaim the life and will of Jesus. Here, again, is the emphasis placed upon the fact that the miracles which the apostles worked proved the truth of their message and its divine origin.

Declarations of Paul

Paul repeatedly declared that he was writing by divine inspiration. “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:12). Modernists are accustomed to cite 1 Corinthians 7:25 as proof that Paul did not claim miraculous inspiration: “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.” But instead of proving that Paul does not claim to write by divine inspiration, this proves exactly the opposite. It is not clear whether Paul’s meaning here is that Jesus did not give any specific teaching upon this point during His ministry, and thus he was unable to quote Jesus directly, but had to speak as he was guided of the Lord; or that on this point he had no revelation from the Lord, but was giving the judgment of an inspired man; in either case the direct conclusion is that in everything else that he writes he has divine guidance. In the preceding context he makes evident reference to the teaching of Jesus upon divorce: “But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:10). This seems to make his meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:25 that he has no such statement from the teaching of Jesus upon the phase of marriage he is now discussing. Even if the contention of the modernist were granted that Paul admits on this particular point he does not have a direct revelation from God, such a contention immediately makes of this passage the exception which proves the rule, for the inevitable conclusion is that in everything else Paul has written, he does claim such miraculous guidance. The difference between the Authorized and the American Standard Versions of the famous passage in 2 Timothy has caused many to be confused as to whether this is an assertion of the inspiration of the Scriptures, but a study of the original and of the two translations shows that this is the fundamental meaning of the passage. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof”...(a.v.). The Greek noun (graphe) translated “scripture” in both versions means either any “writing” or the “scripture” (the specific group of writings held to be inspired). The American Standard Version takes the general sense and says that “Every writing which is inspired of God” (i.e., the Old Testament and such books of the New Testament as had been written at this time). The Authorized Version takes the specific sense and says “every scripture” (i.e., the Bible) “is inspired.” The verb must be supplied and the conjunction (kai) may be translated “and” (a.v.) or “also” (a.s.v.). Both versions affirm that the Bible is inspired of God: the Authorized Version by direct assertion, the American Standard Version by implication. The American Standard Version certainly does not improve on the translation of the Authorized Version in this particular passage, although the ultimate meaning is the same in both translations.

Testimony of Peter The declaration of Peter on the day of Pentecost that the apostles were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the prediction of the prophet Joel (Acts 2:17-21) is repeated by him continually by direct statement or by implication both in the Book of Acts and in the rest of the New Testament. Peter gives a particularly strong declaration in his Second Epistle: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:16-21). Such are the claims which the New Testament makes for itself. Even the quotations which are not taken from the Gospel narratives argue immediately for the inspiration of these books, for they are an inseparable part of the unit, the New Testament, and that which is true of one of the books is true of the others. Furthermore, the declarations of the Epistles establish the inspiration of the apostles and their chosen companions whom they miraculously endowed by the laying on of their hands. The authors of the Gospels are apostles or their immediate companions. Thus from the viewpoint of both the writer and his product, the evidence is conclusive. The Modernistic Position

What has the modernist to say concerning this evidence, the explicit declarations of the New Testament? They make the attempt to laugh it out of court. Their manner may be subtle or boisterous, but their general reply is ridicule. Professor Hill caricatures this position as “the dictation theory of inspiration” and frankly admits that if it be true, there is no Synoptic problem and the books differ and agree in accord with their divine Author. He adds, however, that “the dictation theory is held by few, if any, thoughtful men today.” Since when did a majority vote become an absolute criterion of truth? Especially when the vote is limited to a single generation and to a hand-picked group out of that generation? It is a rather delicate question to raise, but men have been known to differ as to who might qualify as “thoughtful men.” It was freely admitted at the outset that the present “trend” among those who are exercising intellectual leadership over this generation is against the inspiration of the Scriptures. But how many times in history have a majority of the scholars in any given generation been committed to a false position? If God guided the Gospel writers, allowing their human personalities to express themselves in differences of viewpoint and style when in harmony with the divine purpose, and restraining them when out of harmony with the divine will, and giving even the words that were used when necessary, then “there is no Synoptic problem.” This is a most significant admission. It is also of primary importance that Professor Hill admits that those who deny such inspiration have been unable to offer any satisfactory, naturalistic explanation of the relationship of the Gospels: if God is ruled out of the explanation, man finds himself unable to explain. The intelligentsia may agree that the Gospels are not inspired of God, but they are certainly in the fiercest disagreement and in general confusion as to what is the proper explanation of the similarities and differences of the narratives. Professor Ropes also finds it “mortifying” to scholars to have to admit that one hundred years of prodigious effort, while producing theories of “enormous proportions” and “bewildering perplexity,” have utterly failed in producing any general or final solution of a rationalistic nature. It is to be expected that those who deny and try to explain away the miracles of the Bible would also attempt to deny its divine inspiration. But the elemental weakness of a purely negative position, which says, “I do not believe it,” is self-evident. Therefore the modernists have struggled desperately for more than a century to prove that the Gospels were written late. If they can prove they were written in a time too late for them to have been the work of the apostles and their immediate associates, then they can break the claims which the New Testament makes for divine inspiration and can weaken the historical merit of the testimony itself. They can argue that these books are forgeries written at a later date, to which the unknown authors attached the names of apostles or famous early Christians in order to gain authority for the book. If they can dissect the books, in the same fashion that they undertake to dissect the Pentateuch or the Book of Isaiah, affirming that not one, but a large number of authors collaborated in producing it; if they can show that the Gospel narratives arose from “sources” by gradual development and hence are but nebulous, evolutionary products, instead of the clear-cut testimony of the original eyewitnesses and their companions; then they hope to break down the whole structure of testimony upon which Christianity rests. Not all who have adopted the radical conclusions have been consciously moved by such intent. But the objective of the atheists who started the movement and first advanced the positions is all too evident. This whole radical position stands or falls upon the proposition of the assumed late date of the Gospels. Now that this assumption is thoroughly discredited, their contentions fall of their own weight.

Evidence from the Character of the Narratives

If the Gospels are inspired of God, we should expect them to give evidence of this, not merely in the claims and miraculous proof offered to sustain these claims, but also in the essential contents of the books themselves. This is exactly what we find when we compare these documents with the literature of the world. They stand absolutely unique. Consider the simplicity and brevity of the narratives. Compare these four brief narratives with the biographies of great men such as Napoleon, Washington, or Lincoln. Instead of writing a vast library, the writers gave only the briefest and most condensed records. What held them back from recording a multitude of miracles and sermons instead of the few which they relate? John declares in a magnificent hyperbole with which he ends his narrative: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). There was a divine restraint which controlled the writers so that the entire New Testament is but a brief, compact volume instead of being an endless collection of material. Who could have restrained himself to two verses, three verses, or five verses, as Luke, Mark, and Matthew do in recording the baptism of Jesus with the amazing supernatural event which accompanied it? Who could have passed over the long years of Jesus’ youth at Nazareth, without pausing to tell more of the incidents the apostles must have known? Contrast the writings of the New Testament with the Apocryphal Gospels of the second and third centuries with their endless efforts to fill in from their imagination the gaps in the inspired narrative. Heap together the enormous collection of writings which is the result of man’s effort through the centuries to explain what is contained in these four short narratives. And yet behold how these brief records still outweigh all the vast bulk of what man has written about them! Where can there be found in biographical literature another example of the complete omission of any description of the personal appearance of the hero? Take any biography you choose and see the painstaking effort to transmit as exact an impression as possible of the physical appearance. We are left without the slightest information as to the stature, the features, the appearance of Jesus. We marvel at the efforts of distinguished artists to paint the portrait of Jesus. Their efforts stir profound reflections within us, but they leave us unsatisfied. We turn away with the inevitable comment: “Wonderful! But I do not think Jesus looked just like that.” Here, again, is the evidence of a divine restraint which guided the inspired authors of the New Testament. Image worship was to be discouraged; it was God’s will that no description of the physical appearance of Jesus should be recorded. The modernist would explain the unparalleled brevity of the Gospels upon the basis of the utter lack of any further information on the part of the authors. This rests upon a dogmatic denial of the genuineness of the documents and contradicts flatly the declaration of John and the actual evidence he offers in the wealth of new material which he records in his Gospel. The modernist is at an utter loss to explain why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not draw upon their imagination and fill in the details, if they actually were ignorant of further facts. A comparison of the Apocryphal Gospels with the New Testament furnishes indubitable proof that the New Testament is fact, not fiction. No explanation of the brevity of our Gospel accounts can be found short of that which appears on the face of the narratives — that the writers were guided and restrained by the Holy Spirit in their presentation of the facts.

Inherent Claims of the Authors This restraint is seen in the amazing absence of any epithets or other evidence of malice on the part of the authors toward Judas, Pilate, Herod Antipas, or the Pharisees and Sadducees. The facts are told in an impersonal manner which reflects sublimely the prayer of Jesus for His enemies as He died on the cross. Can this be paralleled in the biographical literature of the world? The word “unique” is written across the Gospels, regardless of what phase the comparison may follow. The humble confessions which the authors record of their own unbelief and failures stand out with a distinctness that is startling. But when these confessions of personal unworthiness are placed alongside their refusal to admit even the possibility of the slightest error in the facts they recorded, there emerges a clear picture of the unprecedented authority with which they wrote. You can not find in any of these books ordinary historical statements that they have searched diligently for the facts, but have been unable to ascertain them; that they can not be sure, but their personal opinion is that this or that happened; or that this or that motive may have caused the conduct described; or that this or that person is variously appraised by his fellows, but their own estimate of him is as follows. Select any historical work you will. Lay it alongside the New Testament with this thought in mind. The contrast stands out like the skyline of heaven against the fogs and mists of earth. The authors declare their facts; calmly they declare the motives and unveil the characters of the persons who enter the account. They offer no defense of their manner. They admit no question of their infallibility. The clinching evidence here is that the bitterest foes of Christianity have been unable to challenge successfully the absolute accuracy of detail — historical or geographical. Each new generation of critics comes up with a new wave of citations of historical inaccuracy on the part of the New Testament writers and thereby furnishes the convenient testimony that all the criticisms of preceding generations have been futile. The assumption of infallibility on the part of the New Testament writers would be set aside as brazen fraud if the critics could disprove the facts they relate. But every time they come up with some line of comparison to show that the silence of Josephus or Roman historians proves that the historical data of the New Testament is in error, some archaeologist’s spade turns up a coin or an inscription which confirms that which the New Testament had stated without the slightest attempt at explanation or defense. The geographical accuracy of the Gospels is so minute that even a skeptic like Renan found himself forced to confess when he visited Palestine that the whole New Testament account began to take on a new historical vividness. The Personality of Jesus and the Inspiration of the Gospels The claims to supernatural guidance and infallible statement of truth by the writers which are so plainly implied in the Gospel accounts take on new proportions in the light of the person and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. These books have been the source of moral regeneration of a sinful world throughout the centuries. Were they the products of perjured witnesses? The imagination of foolish fanatics? Frauds forged by nonentities who were so conscienceless that they falsely tried to leave the impression of miraculous guidance and infallibility? If so, then a lie works better than the truth; a stream can rise higher than its source; and water can run uphill. Henry Van Dyke says of Jesus: “He is such a person as men could not have imagined if they would, and would not have imagined if they could.” G. Campbell Morgan remarks that if Jesus is the mere creation of His biographers, then we should be compelled to worship the ones who conceived and created Him. Now it follows inevitably upon such unshaken conclusions concerning the character of Jesus, that the men whom He chose to make Him known to the world did not combine His matchless character and teaching with the most flagrant falsehood imaginable in their implied and stated claims to supernatural guidance in the recording of His life. They freely admitted their moral imperfections. But they declare with an absolute authority their record of the facts about Jesus. They sealed their testimony with the resolute endurance of toil, poverty, persecution, and death. The sublime documents which they have given to the world, record toward the close of the last of these, the glorious beatitude of faith which Jesus pronounced upon those who accept their testimony: “Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name” (John 20:28-31).