In chapter 4 Josh examined the biblical manuscripts with 3 tests: the bibleographical test, the internal evidences test, and the external evidence test.
First, he told how archaeologists have helped to prove the reliability of the New Testament. The critics of the Bible are almost innumerable, but many who wanted to prove it unreliable found it to be true as they continued to investigate history.
Josh wrote, "There seems to be a constant barrage of accusations that have no historical foundation or that have now been outdated by archaeological discoveries and research." He told how at a lecture, a history professor who brought his class to hear the lecture, said, "You are basing all your claims about Christ on a second-century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded."
Josh told him, "Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date." He mentioned that the theory was the conclusion of a German critic, F.C. Baur, who felt that the New Testament was written late in the second century. In the 19 hundreds his theory was proven wrong by archaeology's discoveries of manuscripts that were proven to be from earlier times. Josh quoted Millar Burrows of Yale, as saying, "Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri (discoveries) is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself." Josh, then, commented, "Such findings as these have increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible." Archaeology has done the same thing for the Old Testament. He, then, quoted William Albright, "...who was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist," as writing, "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date...given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." Mr. Albright also said in an interview for 'Christianity Today', "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D."
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists, "was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be." He didn't think Acts was "...a trustworthy account of facts of that time." He didn't consider it worth studying, but his investigation forced him to do so. As he studied the accuracy of the historical details, his attitude toward Acts and Luke, the author, changed. He said, "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay was impressed with the accuracy of the smallest details of the book. Josh, then, wrote, "Many of the liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Dr John A. T. Robinson feels that all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D.
In 1977, when Josh wrote this book, Form Critics were saying that the New Testament books were embellished as they were handed down by memory-word of mouth. but archaeology has proven the time the books were written was so soon after the actual happenings, that no legends, tales, or myths could have been inserted into the naratives. It normally takes a long time for that to happen. Those critics look for what they want to see, but they're having to admit that they are wrong. They don't consider the intricate process Jewish transcribers went through to copy the Old Testament. Certainly the early Church leaders would have been very careful to be sure they preserved the original words without any corruption of the text. Josh quoted A. H. McNeile saying that "...it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching." Another writer theorized that Jesus taught in a poetical form making it easier to memorize.
Next time we will look into the 3 tests used to prove the reliability of the Bible. Josh wrote that many history professors don't test any other manuscripts as the Bible has been tested. Yet the Bible passed all the tests with flying colors!
Sincerely,
Rick
First, he told how archaeologists have helped to prove the reliability of the New Testament. The critics of the Bible are almost innumerable, but many who wanted to prove it unreliable found it to be true as they continued to investigate history.
Josh wrote, "There seems to be a constant barrage of accusations that have no historical foundation or that have now been outdated by archaeological discoveries and research." He told how at a lecture, a history professor who brought his class to hear the lecture, said, "You are basing all your claims about Christ on a second-century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded."
Josh told him, "Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date." He mentioned that the theory was the conclusion of a German critic, F.C. Baur, who felt that the New Testament was written late in the second century. In the 19 hundreds his theory was proven wrong by archaeology's discoveries of manuscripts that were proven to be from earlier times. Josh quoted Millar Burrows of Yale, as saying, "Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri (discoveries) is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself." Josh, then, commented, "Such findings as these have increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible." Archaeology has done the same thing for the Old Testament. He, then, quoted William Albright, "...who was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist," as writing, "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date...given by the more radical New Testament critics of today." Mr. Albright also said in an interview for 'Christianity Today', "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D."
Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists, "was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be." He didn't think Acts was "...a trustworthy account of facts of that time." He didn't consider it worth studying, but his investigation forced him to do so. As he studied the accuracy of the historical details, his attitude toward Acts and Luke, the author, changed. He said, "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay was impressed with the accuracy of the smallest details of the book. Josh, then, wrote, "Many of the liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament. Dr John A. T. Robinson feels that all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D.
In 1977, when Josh wrote this book, Form Critics were saying that the New Testament books were embellished as they were handed down by memory-word of mouth. but archaeology has proven the time the books were written was so soon after the actual happenings, that no legends, tales, or myths could have been inserted into the naratives. It normally takes a long time for that to happen. Those critics look for what they want to see, but they're having to admit that they are wrong. They don't consider the intricate process Jewish transcribers went through to copy the Old Testament. Certainly the early Church leaders would have been very careful to be sure they preserved the original words without any corruption of the text. Josh quoted A. H. McNeile saying that "...it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching." Another writer theorized that Jesus taught in a poetical form making it easier to memorize.
Next time we will look into the 3 tests used to prove the reliability of the Bible. Josh wrote that many history professors don't test any other manuscripts as the Bible has been tested. Yet the Bible passed all the tests with flying colors!
Sincerely,
Rick
