The
first motivation to pray the Rosary that I would like to look at in
depth are the Gospels. Many of the Rosary's prayers and Mysteries are
rooted in the written Gospels. This will inspire us to pray the Holy
Rosary in proportion to the level of belief we have in the Holy
Gospels. Strictly speaking, it is not a matter of evidence but one of
faith that allows us to fully believe in the events and words
recorded in the Gospels. Even still, there is much in the way of
evidence for us to examine so that our faith does not have to work so
hard.
First
we can compare how well the modern texts of the Gospels match up with
those used in ancient times. We don't have the original copies of
the Gospels. But there are literally thousands of cataloged
manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts of the New Testament. By
examining the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts we can conclude
that the modern text of the New Testament goes back to at least 200
A.D.
Since
there are no older manuscripts of the Gospels still preserved today
that we can use to compare modern translations with, we next go on to
look at the indirect evidence provided by the writings of early
ecclesiastical writers. A few
examples of such writers are St. Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul (c. 140
- 203),
Clement of Alexandria in Egypt (c. 150
- 211)
and Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa (c. 150/160
- 220).
Between these three, they quote the New Testament over 10,000 times.
From their writings alone it is possible to reconstruct most of the
entire New Testament which we find essentially the same as it is
today.
Another
writer, Tatian (c. 120
- 180) compiled all 4 Gospels into one
continuous narrative of the Gospels called the "Diatesseron".
The text of the Gospels that Tatian used when he wrote shortly after
the middle of the Second Century matches the Gospels of modern times
and since he himself became acquainted with the Gospels by St. Justin
Martyr (c. 103-165), the text of the Gospels goes back to at least
140 A.D.1
It
is worth noting that the written Gospels were widely diffused among
the early Christian communities where they were collectively read.
St. Justin (c. 103-165) writes of this:
For
the Apostles in the records which they have made and which are called
the Gospels, have declared that Jesus commanded them to do as
follows, "He took bread and gave thanks and said, Do this in
commemoration of Me."2
And
on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same
place of all who live in cities or in country districts, and the
records of the Apostles ... are read as long as there is time.3
This
distribution of the written scriptures was also well known to the
pagan authorities who would routinely give order that they be
surrendered over for burning as is described in documents related to
the trial of early Christians.4
More evidence of the wide diffusion of the Gospels comes from a
group of fourteen writings known as the Apostolic Fathers (composed
between c. 70 A.D. And 155 A.D.). These were written in widely
separated parts of the world.
For
example, St. Ignatius (d. 107 A.D.) was from Syrian Antioch; the
First Epistle of Clement proceeds from the Christian community of
Rome to the Christian community of Corinth (96/98 A.D.); St. Polycarp
of Smyrna (d. 155/166 A.D.) in Asia Minor wrote a letter to the
Christian community in Philippi in Macedonia. ...The Apostolic
Fathers give unmistakable evidence of being acquainted with all the
Gospels.
...
The oldest extant writing which extensively defends the integrity of
the Gospels is Tertullian's "Adversus Marcionem" written about
207/211 A.D. ... Tertullian's refutation pointed out that all the
Gospels were integral because at an early date measure were taken to
insure the agreement of the transcriptions with the originals.5
-Quoted
from Chapter V of "College Apologetics" by Fr. Anthony Alexander
The
more diffused a writing is the safer it becomes from corruption
during transcriptions. If a text is widely diffused, errors will be
readily noticed and localized. Because historical documentation
convincingly points to such diffusion we can reasonably conclude that
the Gospels of today are essentially the same as the original
autographs.
Now
it is widely held that the authors of these documents are St. Matthew
the Apostle, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John the Apostle writing the
First through Fourth Gospels, respectively. But as the authors'
names did not appear on the original Gospel manuscripts, we will
examine what evidence exists in favor of this long held tradition.
In
his book, "College Apologetics" Fr. Anthony Alexander looks to
the Ante-Nicene writers for just such evidence. The passages that
follow are taken from Chapter VI of this book:
The
tradition which Tertullian
[(c.
160 - 220)]
knew concerning
the authorship of the Gospels is set down in his work entitled
"Adversus Marcionem" ... as follows:
We
affirm, first of all, that the source of proof which the Gospels
furnish indicates the Apostles to be their own authors. ... I
maintain that this Gospel of Luke existed from the very beginning of
its publication in the Apostolic churches and in all those which were
united to them through a common bond of faith, while that of Marcion
was unknown to most of the congregations and if known to any was
bitterly condemned. The same authority of the Apostolic churches
also supports the other Gospels which we possess through them and
after them ... namely the Gospels of John and Matthew as well as the
Gospel of Mark which is designated as that of Peter whose interpreter
Mark was.6
St.
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140
- 202/203) ... was born in Asia Minor
and spent some time in study there. He also knew the tradition of
the West for he succeeded Pothinus (d. 177/178) as the bishop of
Lyons. Besides this, he explicitly states that he set out to
discover personally the tradition of Rome. While St. Irenaeus was in
Asia Minor, he was the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna (d.
155/156) who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Apostle.7
In Lyons he learned the ancient tradition of this region from
Pothinus who was about ninety years old when he was martyred. ...
[Irenaeus writes:]
Matthew
published his Gospel among the Hebrews and in their own language at
the time when Peter and Paul were preaching the glad tidings in Rome
and founding the church there. After departure Mark also, the pupil
and interpreter of Peter, has given us what has been preached. Luke,
however a companion of Paul, has chronicled in his work the Gospel as
it was preached by that Apostle. After that John, the disciple of
the Lord, who was reclining on his breast, published his Gospel while
he was residing at Ephesus in Asia.8
Irenaeus
then adds that this knowledge was the universal tradition of the
Church.9
...
Origen (c. 185-254/255 A.D.) of Alexandria in Egypt ... succeeded
Clement as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement,
in turn, was taught by men of olden times who came from many parts of
the Greek speaking world. Origen's testimony regarding the
authorship of the Gospels is summarized in his first commentary on
Matthew. In it he states that he,
learned
from tradition concerning the four Gospels which alone are
unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was
written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but
afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ who published it for those who
from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew
language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote according to
Peter's instructions ... Thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote
for those who from the Gentiles came to believe, the Gospel that was
preached by Paul. After them all, that according to John.10
Dozens
of similar passages could be produced. These three that were
selected are representative of the principle geographical regions of
the ancient world where Christianity was active, suggesting a
universality of this tradition among early Christians and confirming
the correctness of our traditional beliefs regarding the authorship
of the Gospels.
There
is additional so-called "internal evidence" within the text of
the New Testament itself.11
For the sake of time I will not go into this except to mention that
the claims entirely support what has already been concluded from the
Ante-Nicene literature, namely that:
-
St. Matthew wrote the First Gospel in Hebrew for the Jews.
-
St. Mark was an associate of St. Peter and wrote the Second Gospel for Christians in Rome.
-
St. Luke, a physician who was closely associated with St. Paul wrote the Third Gospel for the non-Jewish converts to Christianity.
-
St. John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," wrote the Fourth Gospel in part as an opposition to a group known as Cerinthians who denied the divinity of Christ.
I
will refer you to Chapter VI of "College Apologetics" by Fr.
Anthony Alexander for more information on this topic.
It
is obvious that the Evangelists were in an excellent position to
accurately narrate the events of Christ's life and His teachings.
Two of them were Apostles and two of them worked closely with the
Apostles. It is not difficult to imagine these zealous souls
emboldened with the Holy Spirit going forth to preach the New Law of
Grace. After preaching the Gospel for some time, they prudently
preserve it in a written form. It is then transcribed and used by
the various emerging Christian communities, each with their own
bishop and priests. After fighting the good fight, the Apostles in
general go on to pass the ultimate test of sincerity and pay the
ultimate price by being tortured and martyred for the love of God and
fellow man.
This
is a compelling meditation by itself and there is evidence to support
for example the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome as well as
countless other early Christian Martyrs, but let us further consider
that the nature of Christianity being so completely tied to it's
founder, compels the convert to learn all he can about Christ. In
the beginning of Christianity this would involve an investigation
into the truthfulness of the Gospels. Fr. Alexander writes on this
and some of the common errors made by critics:
The
existence and the activities of Jesus were widely known. ... Persons
who were already adults when Christ died, were but from fifty to
sixty-five years old when the first three Gospels were written; and
some ancient writers cite instances of certain exceptional
eye-witnesses who lived until after the writing of the Gospel of St.
John.
...
The events of the Gospels were a stumbling block to belief for the
Jews. ... They wanted a Messias who would liberate them from the
Roman yoke and make Jerusalem the political and cultural center of
the world. But the Gospels portrayed the Messias as one who did not
care for earthly kingdoms and who even predicted the destruction of
Jerusalem. Naturally, then, the decisive means at the disposal of
the Jews by which they could replace their deeply embedded, popular
notion of the Messias with the notion of the spiritual Messias of the
Gospels was to investigate thoroughly the truth of the spoken and
written Gospels. Yet it can be proved that many Jews12
became Christians.
The
pagans considered it foolishness to pay homage and allegiance to a
Person who seemed too helpless to prevent men from putting Him to
death in such a disgraceful way as crucifixion. To become a member
of the religion founded by Christ meant that one would have to live
with the possibility either of losing his property by confiscation,
or of martyrdom continually imminent. Naturally speaking, how could
these pagans bring themselves to accept Christ and the consequences
of being His followers? The principal means by which this could be
accomplished was by an investigation into the truth and claims of
Christ as they were outlined in the Gospels. Even pagan sources show
that many were converted to Christianity.13
After
defending the reliability of the Gospels (Chapter VII of "College
Apologetics") Fr. Alexander goes on to discuss the theories of
critics:
The
illogical procedure of the critics is apparent at once. Instead of
applying the rules of historical method to the Gospels, the critics
apply false philosophical principles to them.14
Their conclusion is drawn before the investigation begins. With the
major premise that miracles are impossible, the conclusion must be
that the Gospels are not historical. These critics show themselves
ready to modify the facts with their theory, whereas a theory should
be modified by the facts.
...
[The Myth Theory puts] the Gospels on par with pagan mythologies,
stating that they had their origin in the ... imagination of the
people, and as such could command no degree of credibility. Strauss
[(1808-1874)] knew well that it takes time for facts to assume the
trappings of myths and so was forced by his own theory to assign the
composition of the Gospels to the Second Century. And this assigning
of the composition of the Gospels to the Second Century proved to be
the weak link in the whole theory, for the evidence of the
ante-Nicene literature is overwhelmingly opposed to setting it at
such a late date. Every argument in favor of the integrity and
authorship of the Gospels is ... implicitly an argument against this
theory.
The
investigations we have gone through in this chapter have been guided
in order to support our faith in the written Gospels as reliable and
historically accurate documents of the Church. Since the Gospels are
a primary source of the Rosary's substance, this should compel us to
persevere in our devotion. Faith is the virtue whereby we are
enabled to believe what God has revealed to us. In fact, it is one
of the three "Theological Virtues." And alongside of hope and
charity, faith involves a supernatural act of the will, truly
requiring divine assistance. Since it is only God that can complete
this virtue in us, let us remember when saying our rosaries to
include a request for more faith as well as an act of thanksgiving
for the faith we already have.
1"College
Apologetics" by Fr. Anthony Alexander. 1954, Chicago, Il.
Chapter V page 48
2I
Apology 66. 3. by St. Justin Martyr
3I
Apology 67. 3. by St. Justin Martyr
4"College
Apologetics" by Fr. Anthony Alexander. 1954, Chicago, Il.
Chapter V page 50
5Tertullian,Adversus Marcionem Bk. IV.
4. 5. Cf. also Eusebius H.E.
Bk. V. xxviii. 18; and St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses
Bk. IV. 32
6Adversus
Marcionem Bk. IV. 5. MPG Vol.
II, Col. 365. De Praescriptione Haereticorum
32.
7Adversus
Haereses III. 3. 6.
8Adversus
Haereses III. 1. 1. MPG Vol. VII, col. 844
9Adversus
Haereses III. 11. 8.
10Quoted
by Eusebius in H. E. (Bk. VI. Xxv. 4-6), trans. By Lake & Oulton
in Loeb Classical Library (London; Heinemann, 1926).
11College
Apologetics, Chapter VI
12H.E.
VI. xxv. 4.
13Tacitus,Annales Bk. XV. 44; Pliny, Ep. 96 ad Trajani, Letters
Bk. 10
14"The
false philosophical principles are that miracles and supernatural
occurrences are impossible on earth. They are not impossible for
there is nothing contradictory about them from the standpoint of
God, or man, or the things themselves." -Fr. Alexander
http://PrayOften.net
Comments