SUNDAY READING

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 77, 17 August 1912, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUNDAY READING

CAN THE GOSPEL BE TRUSTED? An address delivered at the Brotherhood by REV. T. H. ROSEVEARE. In seeking an answer to the above, we are faced with two questions—(l) Were the writers of the Gospels well informed? and (2) Were they honest men? The answers to these questions form the external and internal evidence of the historicity of our Gospels. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. In tracing out the external evidence we are in the fortunate position of being able to refer to ancient documents of the fourth, and fifth centuries that establish the existence of our Gospels at that time. These documents are the Alexandrian M.S. in the King's library, one in the Vatican library in Rome, and a third, the Sinaitic, in St. Petersburg. It therefore remains for us to show that there is sufficient evidence of the existence of these Gospels continuously back to Apostolic times. If that can be done, then we vill have no hesitation in saying that the writers were well informed. In the third century there lived one Origen, who wrote commentaries on the Gospels, whose commentaries still exist, showing that the Gospels were known and accepted in his day. Irenaena was born in 130 A.D., and so lived principally in the second half of the second century. Here is a quotation from the writings of that famous Bishop of Lyons: "Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language. Mark put in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke, the attendant of Paul, wrote the third Gospel, and afterwards John, who leaned on Jesus' breast, put forth his Gospel." These Gospels, and no others, he tells us, the churches acknowledge. Similar evidence is born about the same time by Clement of Alexandria, who speaks of "Four Gospels which have been handed down to us," by Tertullian, of North Africa, wtio emphasises the sole authority of the four Gospels, and by the Muratorian Fragment, a piece of an old document, date A.D. 170, which begins with a description of the Gospel according to Mark, calls Luke the third Gospel, and gives an account of the fourth Gospel. Note the fact that we have culled from Asia Minor, from Northern Africa, from Alexandria, and to this may be added the writing of Justin Martyr, of Palestine, in the first half of the second century. Add to this the additional fact that these men speak not for themselves alone, but for the churches they represent, so that we have the cumulative evidence of these widely scattered communities.

Yet again, the middle of the second century is not far removed from Apostolic times when we remember that the Apostles lived some time after the death of our Lord. There was not sufficient intervening time between, say, 90 A.U. and 150 A.D. for spurious Gospels to come into existence and general acceptance in the churches. Moreover, oreater stress should surely be laid upon the evidence of honorable men who lived at that time than upon the conflicting statements of men who lived twentycenturies later.

WERE THEY HONEST MEN? We next turn to the internal evidence, and ask, Did these men write true accounts or did they invent stories? We can well believe it to be within the range of possibility for Shakespeare, the literary giant, to invent such a character as Hamlet, but we cannot conceive how ordinary fishermen in the first century could invent th# picture we have in the Gospels of the Peerless One. Nor did they consider it their place to do so. They ever looked upon themselves as mere witnesses, whose function it was to narrate as correctly as they could remember, "those things which he did" (Acts 10-3!)).

That they carried out this duty faithfully ig seen from the fact; that they relate instances of their own ignorance and weakness together with the reproofs of their Master. For example, it is recorded that they are slow to understand Ins references to His death, and they persistently entertain false conception's of his Messiahship. They are slow to understand the parables, 'and Jesus rebuked them for it. Such instances would not be given bv those who were concocting a story. " Imposters would present themselves in as favorable a light as possible. The above are evidences of the objectivity of the facts. The writers go so far as to record their own serious delinquencies, such as the entertainment of a spirit of jealousy and rivalry among themselves, their faithlessness when they -'all forsook Him iind fled." and their rebuke of the little children who were brought to Jesus. Again, if these writers were imposters they certainly would have idealised their chief character. Jesus. As a matter of fact, though they record no sons of His, vet they truthfully state that bein<r weary He sat by a well, or fell asleep ma boat, or. worn out by the strenuous trial and cruel treatment and scourging, He was too weak to carry His croSs to Calvary.

It must also be borne in mind that, although the disciples were warned beforehand of the sufferings involved in being apostles, for Jesus lias said. "They shall deliver you up to he afflicted and shall kill you. and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake," though they had nothing to gain, but everything to lose, if their message were not true" vet they persisted in their course, a fact that indicates their conviction of the truth of their message. If these be true, that the narrators of the Gospel were in a position to know, and wrote honestly what they knew, what, then about the '

RESULTS OF CRITICISM? It is true that apparent discrepancies ilo exist, though many of those can be easily explained by 'a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances. But though the accounts of various incidents diner in the different Gospels, that need bf' no source of difficulty to us. Suppose two newspaper reporters write up an account of any event thev have witnessed, there will be differences in the accounts, as one man is impressed with one thing and another with another. Suppose two men get into conversation about their common school-days of fifty years; ago. there will be many difference's and perhaps even discrepancies in their accounts, but no one will doubt the truth of their accounts. And here are accounts written t>y different men. in widely different places, at different times, describing the events that transpired in connection with the life of Jesus Christ The wonder is, not that they differ, but that they are in accord to such a Jaro-e extent. This fact indicates the historicity of the events narrated.

rims we come to the conclusion that our Gospels contain the original apostolic testimony continuously handed down through the centuries so that we mav say concerning them. "These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. and that believing, ye might have life through His name."