Although these are single testimonies, we must remember that they are the testimonies of the chief men of the churches of their day, and that they express the opinion of the churches themselves. ?Like banners of a hidden army, or peaks of a distant mountain range, they represent and are sustained by compact, continuous bodies below.? In an article by P. W. Calkins, McClintock and Strong?s Encyclopedia, 1:315-317, quotations from the Apostolic Fathers in great numbers are put side by side with the New Testament passages from which they quote or to which they allude. An examination of these quotations and allusions convinces us that these Fathers were in possession of all the principal books of our New Testament. See Ante-Nicene Library of T. and T. Clark; Thayer, in Boston Lectures for 1871:324; Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 11 ? ?Ignatius says to Polycarp: ?The times call for thee, as the winds call for the pilot.? So do the times call for reverent, fearless scholarship in the church.? Such scholarship, we are persuaded, has already demonstrated the genuineness of the N.T. documents.
(e) In the synoptic gospels, the omission of all mention of the fulfillment of Christ?s prophecies with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem is evidence that these gospels were written before the occurrence of that event. In the Acts of the Apostles, universally attributed to Luke, we have an allusion to ?the former treatise?, or the gospel by the same author, which must, therefore, have been written before the end of Paul?s first imprisonment at Rome, and probably with the help and sanction of that apostle.
<440101> Acts 1:1 ? ?The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.? If the Acts was written A. D. 63, two years after Paul?s arrival at Rome, then ?the former treatise,? the gospel according to Luke, can hardly be dated later than 60; and since the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70, Matthew and Mark must have published their gospels at least as early as the year 68, when multitudes of men were still living who had been eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus? life. Fisher, Nature and Method of Revelation, 180 ? ?At any considerably later date [than the capture of Jerusalem] the apparent conjunction of the fall of the city and the temple with the Parousia would have been avoided or explained...Matthew, in its present form, appeared after the beginning of the mortal struggle of the Romans with the Jews, or between 65 and 70. Mark?s gospel was still earlier. The language of the passages relative to the Parousia, in Luke, is consistent with the supposition that he wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, but not with the supposition that it was long after.? See Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels; Alford, Greek Testament, Prolegomena, 30, 31, 36, 45-47.
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?