The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament — John Shaqi
The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old TestamentKent, Charles Foster
Religion
The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament
Kent, Charles Foster
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Bible. New Testament -- History; Bible. Old Testament -- Introductions
As is well known, the twenty-one letters in our New Testament were
selected from a far larger collection of epistles, some of which were
early lost, while others, like the Epistles of Barnabas and Polycarp and
Clement, were preserved to share with those later accepted as canonical,
the study and veneration of the primitive Church.
[Sidenote: _Influences that gave rise to the earliest Gospels_]
The influences which originally produced the Gospels and Acts were very
different from those which called forth the Epistles. The natural
preference of the early Christians for the spoken word explains why we
do not possess to-day a single written sentence in the Gospels which we
can with absolute assurance assign to the first quarter-century
following the death of Jesus. Two influences, however, in time led
certain writers to record his early life and teachings. The one was that
death was rapidly thinning the ranks of those who could say, _I saw and
heard_; the other was the spread of Christianity beyond the bounds of
Judaism and Palestine, and the resulting need for detailed records felt
by those Christians who had never visited Palestine and who had learned
from the lips of apostles only the barest facts regarding the life of
the Christ.
[Sidenote: _Testimony of Luke's Gospel_]
The opening verses of Luke's Gospel are richly suggestive of the origin
and growth of the historical books of the New Testament:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning
those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered
them unto us,--they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the
course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty
concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.
This prologue states that many shorter Gospels had previously been
written, not by eye-witnesses, but by men who had listened to those who
had themselves seen. Luke leaves his readers to infer that he also drew
a large number of his facts from these earlier sources as well as from
the testimony of eye-witnesses. The implication of the prologue is that
he himself was entirely dependent upon written and oral sources for his
data. This is confirmed by the testimony of the _Muratorian Fragment_:
Luke the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken
him, as it were, as a follower zealous of the right, wrote the gospel
book according to Luke in his own name, as is believed. Nevertheless he
had not himself seen the Lord in the flesh, and, accordingly, going back
as far as he could obtain information, he began his narrative with the
birth of John.
His many literal quotations from it and the fact that he makes it the
framework of his own, indicate that Mark's Gospel was one of those
earlier attempts to which he refers.
[Sidenote: _Luke's motive in writing_]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account