|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1).
The teachings, actions, and miracles of Christ defy our fleshly imagination. Hearing of someone turning water into wine, walking on water, healing the blind, and finally a resurrection sounds more like mythology than history.
The New Testament depicts a miracle-working God in the Gospels and a church performing the same miracles in the Book of Acts and in many of the Letters. For this reason, the 27 books of the New Testament should be more historically reliable than other books from that period. And they are.
Reason #3 for the Reliability of the New Testament: The historical verification of its 27 totally unique books.
If I claimed, “I can run a mile in two minutes,” you, the faithful readers of Interruptions, would laugh and then say, “Prove it by running a mile in two minutes.” In a similar manner, with the extraordinary claims of the New Testament, the author, the Holy Spirit, says, “I’ll prove it by giving hundreds of times more documented evidence for the New Testament than any other historical writing in the ancient world.”
No one doubts the existence of Julius Caesar and his genius military conquests, and yet Caesar’s autobiographic Gallic Wars (seven books), in which he described his victorious battles, were composed between 58 and 50 B.C., and the earliest known manuscript of Caesar’s writing is dated from the 9th century A.D., or 900 years after Gallic Wars were written with quill on parchment by Julius Caesar.
Let’s consider — historical and apologetical drum roll — that there are 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, with one of them containing John 18:31-33 dated to A.D. 130. Also, the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing most of the New Testament, dates to 200 to 225 A.D., and two complete New Testament books date to 350 A.D.
Again, 5,000 manuscripts, and I’ve given only the highlights. We have just one copy of Gallic Wars dated 900 A.D., and as one scholar (let’s define scholar as someone who knows more than Pastor Grant, and can’t run a mile in two minutes either) writes…
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.
Let me explain. The historical phrase “rooted manuscripts,” as both a term and a concept, was recently coined by Pastor Grant while writing this blog. What do I mean? All these thousands of manuscripts, dating to 130, 250, and 350 A.D. (and later), are based on earlier documents. These are the “rooted manuscripts” from which the known manuscripts were copied or the roots of the known documents.
And these “rooted manuscripts,” which we don’t have but must exist, date back to the first century, within the lifetimes of many who were still alive when the events proclaimed in the Gospels, Acts, and Letters occurred. And there are no “rooted” or extant documents, papyri, or manuscripts (from within or outside the Christian community of that time) that deny the miracles of the New Testament.
Let’s bow down and worship a living God, who speaks His Word through the New Testament today, giving us ample evidence to dispel doubts about any of the twenty-seven books!