3.18 - IS THE BIBLE CREDIBLE?
IS THE BIBLE CREDIBLE? Your continued presence and evidence of interest in these talks are genuinely appreciated not only by me, but by those brethren who are making possible this meeting. Allow me to read to you 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Again, I read 2 Peter 1:3, "According as his Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness." With the passing of the years, issues change and a different line of preaching is in demand. The paramount issue today is not what the Bible teaches on some special subject, but whether or not the Bible itself is credible and reliable. The time and place of the establishment of the church, the design of baptism, the operation of the Holy Spirit, etc., are, for the time, largely relegated. Men who claim to be educated are ridiculing the Word of God, and declaring it unworthy of the confidence of man. In discussing matters today, one must know the meaning of certain terms and be able to defend the claims of Christianity. I call attention to such words as Integrity, Genuineness and Authenticity. What do we mean by these words? Without being tedious, let me submit that by the integrity of all ancient book is meant its wholeness, or its uncorrupted preservation. That integrity has been preserved when it has come down the ages without material change. The branch of science treating of this subject is called Textual Criticism or Biblical Criticism.
There is not a writing of antiquity but that in passing down the ages has had some change in it. A restoration of the original text has ever been a useful and important work. Christians believe that our Bible today is a true and accurate statement of what God revealed through holy men of old. They accept the integrity of this sacred volume. By the genuineness of a book is simply meant that it was written by the one whose name it bears. In case no name is attached, its author would be determined from other considerations. Was the letter to the Romans written by Paul, or did another write it and forge his name? The authenticity of a book raises the question of its credibility or reliability. In order to be authentic, a book does not have to be infallibly accurate, but it must possess that degree of reliability which belongs to historical writings of the better class. In the light of this setting, is the Word of God authentic? This involves the science of Historical Criticism or Higher Criticism. This again is of two classes. Christians are interested in Higher Criticism of a constructive kind. Infidels are engaged in the destructive type. To determine the authenticity of any writing, certain canons have been formulated. The following are generally accepted:
1. The writings of a contemporary, who is credible, and who has had opportunity for personal knowledge of the facts recorded, have the highest degree of credibility. Under this head, public records, monuments, and inscriptions, made by contemporaries, are included.
2. Those of a writer who may be reasonably supposed to have obtained his information from eye-witnesses possess the second degree of credibility.
3. Writings based upon oral tradition have the least degree of credibility, but when the traditions of one people are corroborated by those of a foreign and even hostile people, their value is wonderfully increased. Their value depends upon the improbability of accidental agreement, and the impossibility of collusion.
4. The concurrent testimony of independent writers greatly increases the probability of all event; and their agreement has the greater force when it is purely incidental, as when one only alludes to all event which the other narrates, or mentions a circumstance incidentally explained by another.
All application of these canons to the writers of the New Testament will be classed as follows: Of the four Gospels, Matthew and John come under Canon 1, because they were eye-witnesses of what they wrote. The same is true of Luke regarding that portion of Acts in which he speaks in the first person; and of Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John in their epistles, so far as they record things that took place under their observation. The two Gospels, Mark and Luke, and a part of Acts come under Canon 2, because they wrote such events as were narrated to them.
So, out of the eight writers of the New Testament, six possess the highest degree of historical credibility, so far as opportunities to know are concerned, and only two have the second degree. The high character of these writings evidenced by the purity of the sentiments expressed, lifts them above the suspicion of being untrustworthy, and secures to them a credibility equal to that of the very best historians.
Unless there is special reason for doubt, their writings should be accepted as readily as any of the facts which go to make up history. The evidence from external sources regarding Jesus is indeed meager, but there are reasons for such. At the time he lived, the world was absorbed in military greatness. Only heroes and heroines on the field of battle attracted attention. Worldly glory and deeds of earthly valor were worthy of mention, but moral force and spiritual achievements were passed into obscurity. The weapons used by Christ and His disciples were hot carnal. He had no great armies, clad in brilliant uniforms, bearing aloft His unfurled banners. He had no great political powers or men of wealth to sing His praise. He was from a despised town and lived among the poorest of the earth, and hence, why should a historian take notice of one so humble?
Among Jewish writers who possessed information necessary to speak with any degree of accuracy, there is only one. Of course, I refer to Josephus, the son of Matthias. He was by his mother descended from the Asmonean family, which for a long time had the supreme government of the Jewish nation. Josephus was born in Jerusalem in the year 37 A.D. This was four years after the death of Christ and the establishment of the church. James was beheaded in the same city when Josephus was seven years of age. He made such progress in school that, at the age of fourteen, the high priests and some of the principal men of the city came to consult him about the right interpretation of the law. At the age of sixteen, he retired into the wilderness, where he spent three years in seclusion. Having learned fully of the three sects, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, he, at nineteen, determined to follow the rule of the Pharisees. Thus he entered public life.
Governor Felix had sent some priests to Rome to be tried before Caesar, and Josephus, being then twenty-six years old, resolved to go to Rome and plead their cause. He had a bad voyage; the ship was wrecked; and out of six hundred on board, not more than eighty were saved. He met in Rome the emperor’s wife, and through her interest procured the release of his clients. Upon his return to Judea, he found things in great confusion. His people were revolting against Roman rule. After the war Began, he was sent to take command of forces in Galilee, and there he fortified the cities as best he could from the attacks of Rome. He was finally shut up in a city for forty-seven days, and then took refuge in a deep cavern with forty other men of prominence. A woman revealed his hiding to Roman authority and only Josephus and one other escaped death. He was present when Titus marched against Jerusalem and he saw the ruin of his city and his country. After the war, he went to Rome and was made a citizen. He drew all annual pension the remnant of his days and died in the year 100.
He was prominent as a great writer, and herein he is best known to us. His works are considered authentic. He wrote History of the Jewish War, The Jewish Antiquities, and his Autobiography. In all his writings, he had but little to say about Jesus. Well might we expect to look to him for all account of the stirring events of the early church, but in this we are sadly disappointed. Perhaps there is a good reason. He could have given no truthful account of Jesus or the church which would not have been a story of shame for the sect to which he belonged. His chief purpose was to elevate his own people in the minds of both Greeks and Romans, who hated them most bitterly. Hence the best policy was that of silence regarding the Christ. Others have adopted the same policy toward those who claim to be Christians only. Experience has taught them that discussion is fatal to their views, and their extorts are centered on fighting Christianity by letting it alone. The silence of Josephus and all early Jewish writers is illustrated by the following story: Less than a hundred years ago, the Congregationalists and the Baptists of England sent each a deputation of two ministers to visit the United States to ascertain the true state of religious societies in the new world as respects doctrines, practices and parties. They were then to report the same, truthfully and faithfully, to the nation of Great Britain. They came and later made a voluminous report. In this country there was a community of Christians of about 150,000 members, with various periodicals promulgating their views through every state and territory in the Union. They were, however, unpopular with the leaders of these two sects which nicknamed them "Campbellite" and their profession, "Campbellism." One of their teachers had said: "The most successful way of fighting Campbellism is to let it alone." In giving a full and accurate report of religious societies in America, the Congregationalists had this to say: "In this disorganized state, Mr. Campbell came among them (the Baptists) with his new lights, and nothing now is heard amongst them but Campbellism, as it is called. The people of this denomination, and especially the teachers, had made too much of their peculiarities as Baptists. Campbell came amongst them, and made everything of them, and has succeeded to all alarming extent. He denounces everybody; he unsettles everything, and settles nothing: and there is great present distraction and scandal." The Baptists made the following report: "In the State of Kentucky there was some distraction in the churches in consequence of the introduction of Campbellism." Do not wonder then that Jesus, the apostles, and the ancient Christians received so little consideration from Josephus. Human nature still runs in its ancient channels. But he does corroborate the Bible in his discussion of many matters. His testimony is all the stronger because it was never intended to strengthen the sacred oracle. In giving all account of a war between Herod the Tetrarch and his father-in-law, Aretas, King of Petrea, he tells of the intrigue between Herod and his half-brother’s wife, Herodias. While old Herod was visiting Rome, it was agreed that when! he returned home she would go and live with him. A part of the contract was that the daughter of Aretas was to be put away. A war arose between Herod and his father-in-law and the former’s army was practically destroyed.
Josephus says: "But some of the Jews were of opinion that God had suffered Herod’s whole army to be destroyed as a just punishment on him for the death of John, called the Baptist."
He also says, "Herod had killed John who was a just man, and had called upon the Jews to be baptized, and to practice virtue." The details of all the above are not mentioned by Matthew, Mark and Luke, but they do tell of the incestuous marriage described. Here, there is perfect agreement on matters of fact, and it is evident that the reports are quite independent of the other.
Josephus also gives all account of the death of James, the Lord’s brother. In that account he calls him "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James." This shows that these two persons, and especially Jesus, were well known in the heathen world.
I next call your attention to the first Roman writer of note. Caius Cornelius Tacitus, whose ancestors are unknown, was born about the middle of the first century and died in the year 117, Thus he lived contemporary with the apostles and early Christians. He was chosen praetor of Rome in the year 88, and was made consul in 97. He wrote, Description of Germany, The Life of Agricola (his father-in-law), History of Rome, and Annals of Rome. He is one of the most reliable of Roman writers and his superiority of style is such that two of his books are used as texts in our best colleges. Tacitus had no respect for Christians and speaks of them in the bitterest terms. His evidence, therefore, is the evidence of a foe, and becomes all the stronger because of such. Summing up his testimony, we offer the following:
1. That Christ is the founder of the sect of the Christians.
2. That Christ was put to death as a criminal.
:3. That He was put to death by Pontius Pilate.
4. That Tiberius was then Emperor of Rome. Hence- 5. The Messiah was born in the reign of Augustus.
6. This "pernicious superstition" was then checked for a time.
7. This "pernicious superstition" broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, but reached the city of Rome.
8. That Christians were persecuted in Rome as early as the year 64, about thirty years after the death of Christ.
9. A vast number was discovered and condemned, not only because they were accused of burning the city, but because of their hatred for mankind.
10. They were hated as the offscourings of the earth, and as the filth of all things; their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt.
11. They were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but to gratify the cruelty of one man.
Tacitus hated the Christians, because they refused to worship his idol gods, and thus disparaged the national religion which, as a Roman statesman, he delighted to honor. There is no crime charged against the disciples of Jesus in all the volumes of this great writer.
If the New Testament had failed to come down to our age, these statements alone would have furnished all account of the origin, progress and sufferings of the church, practically as found in the New Testament which we have. This testimony, independent and even hostile, according to Canon 4, enhances the probability of the facts themselves. The next Roman writer is Pliny, "the younger," to distinguish him from all uncle bearing the same name and a man of some repute. Pliny was born near Milan, Italy, in the year 61 A.D.
He was all elegant writer of the epistolary type. He witnessed the eruption of old Mount Vesuvius in the year 79, as it buried the cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii thirty feet beneath the surface, and he has written the best account of that tragic event. He was made consul of Rome in the year 100, and was proconsul of Bithynia under Trajan in the years 106-108.
Upon entering Bithynia he found a great persecution waged by government authority in progress. For a while he continued it, but finally wrote a letter to Trajan, the emperor, in which he stated the facts he found and asked for instructions of procedure. From his letter the following points of information are gathered.
1. A vast number of Christians were then in Bithynia, of every age and rank, of both sexes, and in all parts of the country.
2. Such was the influence of their teaching, that the heathen temples were almost deserted, and the victims for heathen sacrifices could hardly find a purchaser.
3. None who were really Christians could, by any means, be compelled to make supplication to tile image of Caesar, or the statue of the gods.
4. After the most searching inquiry, including the torture of certain Christians to force confessions from them, he had found no vices among them.
5. They suffered for the name of being Christians, without the charge of any crime.
6. They were accustomed, on stated days, to hold two meetings, one for singing "in concert" hymns to Christ, and for making vows to live righteously; and the other for eating a "harmless meal."
7. Those who were Roman citizens were sent to Rome for trial. This testimony comes from all independent source and is prompted by all anxiety to know how to handle this sect.
It is in perfect harmony with the New Testament narrative. The sending of those who were Romans to Rome is parallel with the experience of the Apostle Paul.
"If any suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name." The most skeptical of earth are forced to accept the evidence that comes from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and other classic writers. But should there be any discrepancy between these and those of the New Testament, the preference would be with the latter because they were much better informed on the subject. The period covered by New Testament history was characterized by frequent and complicated changes in the political affairs of Judea and those countries round about. None of these are accurately described in the New Testament and yet it contains many allusions to them in all incidental way. Josephus gives a detailed account of all. This fact affords a most excellent opportunity to test the accuracy of sacred writers. Agreement can be accounted for on no ground except perfect information on both sides. The New Testament reader who has no other source of information is left in great confusion. In the history of Matthew and Luke we read of "Herod the King." In Matthew 2:1-23, we find that Herod the King dies, yet in Matthew 14:1-36, Herod appears again and is called "the king" and "the tetrarch." In Acts 12:1-25, Herod the King beheads James. In these statements not a word of explanation appears. In Matthew 2:1-23, Archelaus is king of Judea, and in Matthew 27:1-66, Pilate is governor of the same region. In Acts 12:1-25, Herod is king of Judea, and in Acts 23:1-35, Felix is its governor. No explanation is made, and yet by consulting Josephus, all is in harmony with the facts of history. The Herod under whom Jesus was born died and was succeeded by his son Herod as ruler of a part of his father’s dominion with the title of both king and tetrarch. The Herod who beheaded James was a grandson of the first, and was made king by Claudius Caesar. Herod the tetrarch was deposed by the Romans and procurators were sent to rule in his stead. They came as follows: Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate. The government of Palestine was again changed and Herod who beheaded James was made king over all the land. Upon his death three years later, governors were again appointed, of whom Felix was one. Thus it appears that the Bible is absolutely accurate in all these matters pertaining to political changes so frequently made. In Luke 2:1-7; Luke 3:1-2; Acts 25:21, we find that Augustus Caesar issued a decree that all the world should be enrolled. When John begins his ministry, it is the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, yet many years after Paul makes all appeal to Augustus. Here is apparent contradiction and confusion. Unless one has made a study of the political affairs of that land, it is impossible to get through this tangled network of allusions. But, as already stated, the name "Herod" Noms attached to both son and grandson of him who was king at the birth of Jesus. The government was first a kingdom; then it was divided into four parts or tetrarchies; then placed under procurators; again changed into a kingdom; and at last back under governors. The Augustus who appears in Luke as if dead and alive again was none other than Nero who bore the title of Caesar Augustus Nero, and by his flatterers he was styled Augustus. No other record of that decree, other than Luke’s, could be found and infidels boasted that no such a decree ever went forth. Their conclusion was that Luke or someone else forged it. More than 1900 years went by with none other found, but, in the Memphis Commercial Appeal of December 18, 1927, Mr. William T. Ellis has all article declaring that on the walls of all unearthed building in Angora, Asia Minor, the original decree has been found, and Luke has been corroborated in full. Let me say that all discoveries during the passing of the years have served to confirm the Word of God and render its statements credible.
Thanks be to those who are spending millions in the field of archaeology. Many times their object may be to find something contrary to the Bible, but every time the result is the exact reverse. God is the author of that sacred volume and its statements are absolutely reliable and wholly dependable. The New Testament was written when Palestine was under the dominion of the Greeks and Romans. Jewish coins went out of use when these nations gained control and others took their places. In the New Testament no mention of this change is made, and yet there are many allusions to the coins then in use. The shekel, the one most common among the Jews and the one found in the Old Testament, is not even mentioned in the New Testament at all. Had these last writings been of a later age, and after the Jewish nation had dispersed, they could not have contained such thorough familiarity with these matters. All this evidences all accurate knowledge on the part of those who wrote the New Testament and renders their words credible. The Bible represents a woman of Samaria as being surprised that Jesus should ask her for a drink of water. She explains by saying that the Jews and the Samaritans have no dealings with each other. Luke says that on one occasion, Jesus and his disciples were going towards Jerusalem, and that they wanted to lodge in a Samaritan village, but "they did not receive him because his face was as though he were going to Jerusalem." These statements were made, incidentally, in giving all account of other matters, and no word of explanation is made regarding the cause of feeling between the two peoples. Josephus gives absolute corroboration of the inspired record by telling of the same animosity. He says it was the custom of the Galileans when they went to Jerusalem to the festivals, to pass through the country of the Samaritans; and that on one occasion certain persons belonging to the border town of Ginea came out against a company of the Galileans thus journeying, and killed a great many of them. This led to retaliation on the part of the Jews, and to contentions before the Roman commanders, which finally culminated in a settlement of the contest by all appeal to the emperor (Antiquities xx, 6). In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts, constant reference is made to the Pharisees and Sadducees; but there is not one word explaining their origin or their full peculiar) ties. The writers assume that they were well known among the people and hence, all references to them are made in quite all incidental way. Josephus mentions them frequently and, being himself a Pharisee, his statements regarding them are authentic. By comparing his formal account of them with the allusions made in the New Testament, perfect harmony prevails. Matthew represents Jesus as alluding to the reputation of the Pharisees for righteousness of a high order. He said to his disciples, "Except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Josephus says, "The Pharisees are a certain sect of the Jews who appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the law more accurately" (Wars, I, 5, 2).
He also declares that the Pharisees have so great power over the multitude, that when they say anything against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed. And again, on account of their doctrines they are able to greatly persuade the body of the people; and whatever the latter do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform according to their directions. This is the exact kind of influence ascribed to them in the New Testament and this is why Christ devoted so much time to all effort to break down their power over the people. The writers of the inspired record are corroborated on every point, and that, too, by one unfriendly to the claims of Jesus.
One of the greatest difficulties of writers and travelers is the maintenance of geographical and topographical accuracy. This is peculiarly so when one is trying to give all account of any country with which he is not perfectly familiar, and even then egregious errors appear. When the Encyclopedia Britannica first appeared, although its articles were written by experts in the various departments, it contained so many errors in regard to places in America, that the publishers of the New American Cyclopedia issued a pamphlet exposing the blunders of its rival. When Tacitus wrote his Description of Germany, it had so many mistakes in geography and topography that some doubted its being the product of all author so well known for reliability. The principal task of those writers who have visited Palestine, for the purpose of describing its localities, has been to correct the topographical mistakes of predecessors. Even the guide books written for the special benefit of tourists have been found quite erroneous in these particulars. Let it be said without fear of contradiction that in the New Testament not a single error along this line can be found. Whether the writers speak of Palestine or of foreign lands, their statements are absolutely reliable. The argue-eyed critics of twenty centuries have been unable to find a blunder made. Very few of us can speak of places here in Tennessee and know whether it is up or down from where we are. But in both the Old and the New Testament the writers are never at fault. The man who fell among thieves was going "down to Jericho." Everybody went "up to Jerusalem." They went "down to Gaza"; "down to Caesarea"; "down to Lydda"; and "down to Antioch." Such accuracy, in these matters as prevails throughout the Bible, can only be accounted for on the ground that those who wrote were guided by a higher power. My friends, if the Word of God is found to be in harmony with authentic writers on matters it mentions incidentally, how can you and I doubt its statements made direct regarding the issues of life and death? The Bible was by inspiration given. Its statements are reliable and its promises are dependable. I am begging you to accept it and let it be a lamp unto your feet and a light unto your path. Won’t you accept it even now, while we sing the gospel invitation? For much of this sermon I have quoted and copied statements made by Brethren A. Campbell and J. W. McGarvey