Proof of the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament ...

Preface

BY THE TRANSLATOR.

The author of the following treatise is known to those conversant with the theological literature of Germany, as a writer of considerable celebrity. He was born in 1796 at Oldeslohe in the Duchy of Holstein. He received his university education partly at Kiel and partly at Berlin. In 1822 he became theological professor at Konigsberg, in the remotest north-eastern part of the Prussian dominions, where he remained till, in 1835, he was called to occupy the same chair at Erlangen in Bavaria. His fame has been derived mostly from his Commentaries, as being his most extensive productions. They are characterized by an almost utter absence of philological display, although they are far from being deficient in learning and shrewdness. The author prefers to exhibit results, rather than the processes by which they were attained. His mode of exposition is altogether more suited to common minds than the erudite, cumbrous mode pursued by most German commentators. To use the language of Proiv translator's preface.

fessor Stuart, " the course of thought, and things rather than words, are his chief object.""^

The little work herewith given to the public in an English dress (published in German in 1832), is an attempt to present concisely and simply the present state of investigation concerning the genuineness of the New Testament. I do not know of a book upon the subject, in any language, which combines so popular a cast with so much comprehensiveness and justness of representation as are, in my opinion, manifested in this. The unlearned but inquisitive Christian may here find sources of reflection and conviction respecting the truth of the record on which he relies, that are not commonly accessible without the toil of severe study.

There will, of course, be found in the work a tone somewhat alien from our American views and feelings. Reference is had to religious circumstances differing in some important respects from our own. This peculiarity of tone, however, does not, in my opinion, involve any thing of a clearly mischievous tendency. Its influence will, I think, be useful. It is well to enlarge our minds through an acquaintance with the sentiments entertained concerning religious things by men as fully imbued with the spirit of piety as ourselves^

* Biblical Repository, Vol. III. p. 151. See also p. 161.

translator's preface.

who have been nurtured in circumstances quite different from those by which we have been affected. Bj comparison and inference, in such a case, we may be much benefited.

I would not be understood as assenting, without restriction, to all the views which this little work presents. They may be right, or they may be wTong. I feel content to launch them before the American public, knowing that if right they will swim, and if wrong they will eventually sink. Of this, however, 1 am fully convinced, (as may be judged from the present version,) that the book is in the main a good one ; and I believe the public will endorse my opinion.

In proceeding with the business of translation I have been guided by the sense rather than the letter. The grammatical construction of the original has been altered whenever it was thought advisable to alter it for the sake of rendering the sense more perspicuous and natural in English. I have in one or two instances ventured to qualify an expression which seemed to me too strong, but never in any case where the change was of much importance. For instance, I have altered inconceivable to hardly conceivable^ etc. I have also, in a few cases, given biblical references in addition to those

furnished by the author. Many of the figures in the

1# vi translator's piieface.

original references were (typographically or otherwise) erroneous, and have been corrected. Biblical quotations are presented in conformity with our received English version, instead of being translated from the German.

The notes which I have subjoined are all designated by the letters Tr.

D. F. Jr.

Boston, March 12, 1838.

Author's Preface

Seven years ago, when I published ray history of the Gospels, it was my earnest desire to show the genuineness of all the books of the New Testament, in a small work, designed for intelligent readers generally. But, urgent as the necessity of such a w^ork appeared to me even then, the execution of my plan has been postponed to the present time ; partly because I was hindered from entering upon it by multiplied avocations, and partly because I hoped some one would present himself who was more capable of such an undertaking than I felt myself to be. For I knew, but too well, how difficult it would be for me to write simply and plainly, so as to become even intelligible to those who are not conversant with investigations of such a description as must be noticed in this work. As, however, no one has yet appeared, to present such a work to the church of Christ, and the necessity of it has meanwhile much increased, nothing remained for me but to surmount my scruples, and execute the work as well as the Lord might permit.

The necessity of such a work will have been evident to every one who has observed how certain posiviii author's preface.

tions as to the pretended spuriousness, or at least suspicious character, of the writings of the New Testament, (positions w^iich were formerly current only within the circle of the clergy,) are now entertained among the common laity. It is easy to imagine the injury which is effected by such foolish opinions. To the audacious opponents of divine truth they afford a fine occasion for repelling every attempt to win their assent to it ; and well-meaning persons often find in them occasion of doubts and anxiety, which they might be spai'ed did they only at least receive the antidote at the same time with the poison. Such an antidote, to obviate, or at least lessen, the destructive consequences of the views of many theologians in regard to the biblical books, (views which are diffused abroad sometimes indiscreetly and sometimes w^ith a bad intention,) I wish this little work to be considered.

It will, at the same time, be my endeavor to correct the views of many not very clear-sighted though well-meaning persons, who appear to think that all critical investigations of the genuineness or spuriousness of the books of the Bible are, as such, wTong, and take their origin from unbelief. This idea is fundamentally erroneous, and not seldom arises from a religious conceit, to which there is a special liability on the part of persons who, conscious of their own internal religious life, dispense with all enlarged views of the connection of theology with the whole church of God on earth, and nevertheless are tempted to judge of things beyond the author's preface. ix

pale of their capacity. It would have been better, therefore, had all such investigations been confined within the circle of theologians ; but, as the doubts to which we have referred have been promulgated among the laity, their refutation must also find a place in general literature.

I should very readily have extended my investigations to the writings of the Old Testament ; but have not, in the first place, because the results of researches in regard to the Old Testament are of a less stable character than in regard to the New, and, moreover, because those who are not theologians by profession have far less need of such information in regard to the Old Testament as is here given concerning the New, inasmuch as to Christians the testimony of Christ and his apostles respecting the Old Testament, the canon of which was then completed, affords a much more certain evidence of its divine origin (and thus of its genuineness) than any historical reasoning could exhibit, especially since from the paucity of sources of information the latter could not be so satisfactory as it is in relation to the New Testament. As to unbelievers, it is of much greater consequence to urge the claims of the New Testament upon them than those of the Old, because, so long as they are opposed to the former, they certainly will not admit the latter. In my closing remarks, however, I have endeavored to designate briefly the right point of view in the determination of critical questions concerning the Old Testament.

X AUTHOR S PREFACE.

To conclude,! pray that the Lord maybe pleased graciously to accompany this my book with his blessing, and cause it to serve as an admonition to many a scoffer, and to console and set at ease the minds of such as have been perplexed with doubts.

Olshausen.

Contents

Page.

Introduction, . . . 13

CHAF. 1.

Introduction

For fifteen hundred years, the New Testament, as we now possess it, has been generally current in the Christian church, and constantly used, as well publicly in the churches, as likewise in the domestic circles of believers. This fact is admitted by the scholars of modern times unanimously, since it can be shown by the most certain historical proofs. Hence all investigations concerning the genuineness of the writings of the New Testament and the manner of its formation relate only to the first few centuries after the ascension of our Saviour and the death of the Apostles. Indeed, it is easily seen that in reality every thing must depend on this primitive period ; for after the New Testament was once made up and generally admitted in the church, it could not be lost. Even before the invention of printing, it was spread abroad in all parts of the christian world by a multitude of copies, it being more frequently transcribed than all other books together. Hence, even supposing that the New Testament, say by war or devastation, had utterly perished in any country, it would immediately have been introduced again from surrounding ones. Of this, however, there is no example. Even such churches as entirely lost connection with the great Catholic church, and on that 2 account sank to a very low point, yet faithfully preserved the sacred Scriptures, as is proved by the instance of the Ethiopian church, in which, on its discovery after the lapse of centuries, the Bible was found still in use.

From the great importance of the New Testament to the church and the ^ whole civilized world, it was a very natural desire on the part of scholars to know exactly how this momentous book was formed. On entering upon this inquiry, however, in the perusal of the earliest writers of the church, accounts were met with which were somewhat difficult of adjustment. It was found that even before the compilation of all the writings of the New Testament into one collection, many Fathers of the church, perfectly well disposed towards Christianity, had doubted the genuineness of particular books of the New Testament. This circumstance naturally arrested attention, and the next inquiry was, what grounds such early Fathers might have had for scruples respecting these writings. In considering this question, one thought he had discovered this reason and another that ; and it often happened that these reasons were considered weighty enough to justify the ancient doubts as to the genuineness of the books. It was at the Reformation, particularly, that this free investigation of the Bible began to extend widely ; and among the Reformers Luther himself was specially remarkable for it. From these inquiries he became fully convinced of the genuineness of most of the writings of the New Testament ; but he supposed it necessary to regard some of them, e. g. the Epistle of James, and John's Revelation, as spurious. In this opinion he certainly erred, particularly, as is now acknowledged by nearly all scholars, in his rejection of the Epistle of James ; but great as was, and still is, his authority in the eyes of many millions of Christians, his belief of the spuriousness of these two books has done no essential harm ; they have maintained their place in the New Testament since as before, and the circumstance of his rejecting them has only shown the church the truth of the old remark that even God's saints may err.

From this example may be clearly seen, however, the total groundlessness of the fear of those who imagine that such scrutinizing inquiries must be, in and of themselves, prejudicial to the church. Such examinations of the origin of Holy Writ and its individual books are not only allowable, but absolutely indispensable ; and they will injure the church, no more than gold is injured by being carefully tried in the fire. The church, like the gold, will but become purer for the test. In the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, the eternal revelation of God reposes in quiet security and brightness, A wonderful divine ordination has preserved it to us without any essential injury through a succession of dark ages. It exerts at the present day, upon all minds receptive of its spirit, the same blessed, sanctifying influence which the apostles claimed for it eighteen centuries ago. How, then, carl these sacred books suffer from careful historical inquiry respecting their origin ? Investigation must rather serve

INTRODUCTION.

to confirm and fully establish belief in their purity and genuineness. That this is actually the effect of really learned investigations is apparent^ likewise, from the following instance. When the very erudite and truly pious Professor Bengel, of Tubingen, published his New Testament with all the various readings which he bad been able to discover, many minds were filled with anxiety, thinking that an entirely new Testament would be the result in the end, if all the various readings were hunted up. They thought it would be better to leave things as they were. But mark — although 40,000 various readings were discovered in the ancient Mss., the New Testament was hardly at all altered thereby ; for very few^ readings were of a nature to have any essential bearing upon a doctrine. Most of them consisted of unimportant transpositions, or permutations of synonymous words (such as in English also for and, etc.) ; and though some readings were more considerable (as e. g. the celebrated passage, 1 John 5: 7 : " For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,^' which must certainly be regarded as spurious), still they are really of no more consequence. For such is the nature of the Holy Scriptures, that there are always many proof-passages for any important doctrine, and hence although these words are withdrawn from the Bible, their purport is still eternally true, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity remains at the present time, as before, the doctrine of the church. Now that all the Mss. have been read and accurately collated.

there is no further occasion for fear that somewhere or other something new may be discovered, which will thrust the old loved Bible aside. Moreover, the principles on which scholars determine the right one among different readings of the same passage are so skilfully devised that it is almost impossible for a false reading to creep in ; and, should one individual err in this respect, another immediately steps in and corrects the error.

It certainly is not to be denied that pious persons, who valued God's word, might well for some time be anxious at heart ; for one biblical book after another was stricken from the list of those which were genuine, and at last we seemed to have none but spurious books in the Bible ; though on the other hand it remained inexplicable who could have taken pains either to forge so many spurious writings himself, or to make a collection of them after they were forged. And then, what could have been the character of the deceitful author or authors (for at all events the books must have been written by somebody) who could compose such writings, — writings which for many centuries have consoled millions in calamity and death. It is now seen, however, that the reason why things were so for a time, was not that men inquired and investigated (for no injury can ever accrue on that account), but that they did not prosecute the investigation with a right spirit and disposition. Every one can see that it is not a matter of indifference with what feelings we engage in investigations of this kind in regard to the sacred books.

2*

Suppose a man so see in the books of the New Testament only monuments of antiquity, of just as httle or as much value as other ancient writings, to have felt nothing of the saving influence of God's word upon his heart, and on that account to be devoid of love for it, yea, even to feel vexed that others should hold it so dear, and enviously and maliciously study how he might destroy their delight in this treasure — such a man, with his perverse disposition, would rake up any thing and every thing in order to undermine the foundation of the church. Whether such corrupt motives have really operated in the heart of any inquirer, no man can determine. It is always presumption to take it upon ourselves to judge respecting the internal position or intention of any heart. We may even suppose one who rejects the whole New Testament to possess honesty and sincerity, which want only the necessary light of conviction. But the possibility that such motives may affect these investigations, certainly cannot be denied ; and that is fully enough for our purpose. If, moreover, we look at the manner in which a Voltaire among the French, and a Bahrdt among the Germans, have treated the sacred books, we find cogent reason to fear that the]/ did not keep themselves free from such corrupt motives, however heartily we wish that God's judgment may pronounce them pure. This consideration is of importance, however, because we may see from it how all depends on this interior state of mind with w^hich a man commences his undertakings ; so that even the noblest enterprise may by an unholy intention lead to pernicious results. But, setting entirely aside the possibility that a man may undertake investigations respecting the Scriptures in a positively corrupt state of mind, he may also do much injury therein from levity and frivolity. If he is not sufficiently penetrated with a conviction of the great importance of investigations concerning the genuineness of the sacred Scriptui^es, if he does not treat the weaknesses of the church with sufficient tenderness, (for she may feel herself wounded in her most sacred interests by the inconsiderate expression of doubts), it may easily happen that, at the first impulse, upon some supposed discovery, this discovery will immediately be blazoned before the world, without having been previously tested with soberness and care by all the means within reach. There is little reason to doubt that vanity is commonly at the bottom of this superficial haste ; for it is always delightful to what Paul calls the old man to be the author of any new and striking opinion. Had all inquirers been able properly to restrain this vain desire to shine, much offence would without doubt have been avoided, and many a heart would have escaped considerable suffering.

Still, in what department of life or knowledge have we not many errors to lament ? He who knows his own heart aright will therefore forgive learned men if they have now and then been governed by vanity or other wrong motives. The misuse of a good thing should not abolish its use ; and it is still true that all investigations respecting the sacred books, their history, and compilation, are in themselves very useful and necessary, as without them we must be entirely in the dark in regard to their true character. We will only wish that henceforth the God of truth and love may infuse truth and love into the hearts of all inquirers, and then it will not be of any consequence that many books have been pronounced spurious ; for fortunately they do not become spurious from the assertions of this or that man, and it is always allowable for another scholar to point out the errors of his predecessor. From this freedom of investigation the truth will certainly come to light by degrees.

If the thoughts here presented be duly considered, it will be readily seen that he v/ho has deep love for the word of God need not take it much to heart that this or that scholar has rejected a particular book. After long investigation, and frequent assertions that most of the books of the New Testament are spurious, it is nevertheless now agreed among scholars generally, that all the writings of the New Testament are genuine productions of the apostles. As to several of them, it is true, precise certainty has not been attained, but it is to be hoped that uniformity will be exhibited soon in regard to these likewise ; and moreover, the difference of opinion in this view concerning several of these books is not so dangerous as it may appear. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g., there is not uniformity of sentiment as yet. Many very estimable divines, with whom I feel myself constrained to coincide in opinion on this point, think that the Epistle was not composed by the Apostle Paul, but by some other very worthy member of the apostolic church. It is clear, however, that even though Paul did not write the Epistle, we cannot on this ground regard it as spurious, inasmuch as its author is not mentioned in it. Hence, the only question in relation to it is, who was its author ? and on that point it is hard to decide, from the obscurity of the accounts given by the ancient Fathers of the church. All, however, regard this Epistle as genuine, i. e. it is universally believed that its author composed it without any intention to palm it off as the production of somebody else, for instance the apostle Paul.

Had that been his purpose, he would have taken care that the Epistle should at once be recognized as Paul's production, by assigning his name to it or in some other way. The case is certainly different as to the second Epistle of Peter, against the genuineness of which many doubts are prevalent. In relation to this Epistle, the first inquiry is not who was its author, for the apostle Peter is most clearly designated as such, but whether Peter was really and truly the author. If the conclusion be, that the Epistle cannot be attributed to Peter, then it must be forged or spurious. It has been attacked with more plausibility than any other book of the New Testament ; and yet much may be said even in behalf of this Epistle, as we shall see hereafter. We may therefore assert that by Divine Providence some good has already accrued from the rigorous sifting to which the books of the New Testament have been subjected in our day. True, it did at first seem as if the whole New Testament would in the course of time be declared spurious ; but, when the first heat was over and sober perspicacity returned, it was seen by inquirers, that far the greater part of its books rested on a firmer historical foundation than most works of profane antiquity which all the world regard as genuine. Hence we may be of good courage in entering on the consideration of the individual books of the New Testament ; for the result of critical investigation is by no means so much to be dreaded as is sometimes thought. First, however, we desire to premise something further respecting the New Testament generally.

Chapter I. The New Testament Generally

The oldest traces of the existence of the whole New Testament as a settled collection occur so late as three centuries after the time of the apostles. The particular reason why so long a period elapsed before this body of writings became definitely determined was, that its individual books, which of course existed before the whole collection, were at first circulated in part singly and in part in smaller collections. For, so long as the apostles were upon earth, and the power of the Spirit from on high was in lively action in every member of the church, so long there was no sensible necessity of a book to serve as the norm or rule of faith and practice. Whenever any uncertainty arose in regard to either, application was made to one of the apostles, and his advice was taken. The Epistles of the apostle Paul owe their origin in part to such inquiries. Now some of the apostles lived to a very great age. Peter and Paul, it is true, died under the emperor Nero (67 A. D.), suffering martyrdom at Rome ; but the Evangelist John, who outlived all the rest, was upwards of ninety years of age at his death, which did not happen till the time of the emperor Domitian, at the close of the first century. Hence, in the lifetime of the apostles, though their writings were highly valued, they were naturally not regarded as sacred writings, which were to be the rule of faith ; because there was a more innmediate guarantee of truth in the living discourse of the apostles and their first companions, as also in the Holy Spirit, which was so powerfully exerting its influence upon the church.

The apostolic writings, therefore, were indeed read in the public assemblies, but not alone, and not regularly. The book for regular public reading was still the Old Testament ; and this is always to be understood in the New Testament when the Holy Scriptures are mentioned. Besides the apostoHc writings, however, other profitable books were used for the edification of the church. In particular, we have still some remains of the writings of immediate disciples of the apostles, commonly called apostolic Fathers^ which were publicly read in the ancient churches. These men all lived in the first century and some time in the second. Among them are Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Polycarjp, bishop of Smyrna, Ilermas, who was probably presbyter at Rome, and the well-known Barnabas, The Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, as well as the Book of Hermas, were read with special assiduity in the ancient churches. On account of the great antiquity of these writings, the books of the New Testament are very seldom quoted in them, and much of what coincides with the contents of the New Testament, e. g. Christ's sayings, may have been drawn by these apostolic Fathers from oral tradition as well as from perusal of the gospels* Indeed, the former source is perhaps most probable, since Christians certainly did not then read the Gospels so assiduously as they were read in later times, when they could no longer listen to the living discourse of the apostles and their immediate companions.

The reason why so few written remains of the immediate disciples of our Lord are now extant, is in part the long lapse of time, which has destroyed many books once current, but in part, also, that the ancient Christians labored more than they wrote. The preaching of the gospel and the regulation of infant churches consumed so much of their time, that little remained to be employed in composition. Moreover, in the first century it was always as when Paul wrote the following declaration (1 Cor. 1: 26) : ** Not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble were called." For the most part only people of inferior standing joined the church of Christ ; and these had neither the capacity nor the inclination to labor with the pen. In these circumstances it is undoubtedly true that we find little information concerning the books of the New Testament in the first centuries. That they did nevertheless exist in the church, we shall prove hereafter. But it might be expected, then, that although the most ancient Christians do not speak of their sacred writings, still the heathen writers of Greece and Rome must have done so, considering the multiplicity of their works on all subjects. The heathen writers, however, who were contemporary with the apostles and the apostolic church make no mention of the apostolic wri- 3 tings, because they cared nothing at all about the Christian church. They considered the Christians as only a sect of the Jews, and despised them as much as they did the latter. They therefore credited the malicious reports which w^ere circulated respecting the Christians, and treated them accordingly as the off-scouring of humanity. Such is the procedure of Tacitus, a noble Roman, who relates the persecution of the Christians under Nero. Thus, of course, nothing could induce the Greeks and Romans to cultivate acquaintance with the writings of the Christians ; particularly as they were distasteful on another account, from their not being clothed in the same elegant language as their productions. It was only when the number of the Christians became so great as to excite apprehension, that they began to pay attention to every thing of importance concerning this new sect, and so at last to their sacred books. But it is not till after the middle of the second century that we find examples like that of CeU sus, who, in order to confute the Christians, made himself acquainted with their sacred books.

The original condition of the primitive church, in which less stress was laid on the Scriptures than on the word of the apostles, was not indeed of long continuance. For the mighty outpouring of the Spirit, which on the day of Pentecost, filled the disciples of our Saviour, had hardly been communicated to a considerable number of other minds and lost its first power, ere erroneous schisms began to prevail in the churches. The germs of these may even be discovered in the writings of the apostles. The first of these party divisions of the ancient church was that of the Jewish Christians. As early as in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul speaks expressly of persons who desired to bring the Galatian Christians again under the yoke of the law. They wished faith in Christ and his redemption to be regarded as insufficient for salvation, unless circumcision and the observance of the law were added. The great preacher of the Gentiles, however, zealously opposes this restricted idea of Christianity, and shows that the soul must lose Christ, if it seeks to use any other means of salvation. It was the object of the law of Moses to lead by its injunctions to conviction of sin, and thus to a desire for salvation ; by its prophecies and types of Christ it was a school-master to guide us to him ; but salvation itself could come only from Christ. Still, Paul was by no means of opinion that those who were Jews by birth must not observe the law when they became Christians ; he rather favored their doing so, if the pious customs of their fathers had become dear to them, or if their own weakness or that of the Jews around them would be offended by the contrary course. Hence, the apostles who remained in Jerusalem till its destruction, as did Matthew and James, observed the law invariably, and so did Paul likewise, when he was in Jerusalem. But the apostles, as well as their true disciples, were far from being desirous to impose this observance of the law upon the Gentiles also. The milder and really christian view of the observance of the law w^as constantly entertained by many Jewish Christians in Palestine, who in later times were called Nazarenes. Many, on the contrary, took the wrong course, which the apostle Paul reproved in certain individuals in Galatia, and these obtained the name of Ebionites. They however fell into other heresies besides their idea of the necessity of circumcision and observance of the law in order to salvation ; particularly in regard to the person of Christ. They denied the real divinity of our Lord and regarded him as a son of Joseph, thus seceding wholly from the true church of Christ.