Post by iris89 on Apr 19, 2008 13:38:49 GMT -5
The Trustworthiness of the New Testament – A Short Brief
INTRODUCTION:
There are many critics who question the trustworthiness of the New Testament and in particular question the Apostle Paul’s authorship of many of the Pauline books in it attributed to him, yet his authorship of these books is perhaps one of the most well documented of any book of antiquity. One item of criticism is that no original copies of any of his books is true, but there exist a multitude of very early copies of the books he authored; whereas, for many other historic authors of antiquity this is not the circumstance. Take Plato, the classic Greek philosopher, there exist NO early copies of any of his writings but only copies from centuries later, but none of these critics ever questions his authorship and/or the writings themselves – a pure case of hypocrisy on the part of the critics.
Of course these same so called worldly wise critics even have the audacity to question whether there ever was an historic Jesus (Yeshua), but I shall not cover this here except to give part of the introduction to a writing covering this in detail, as follows:
<<<”Worldly critics do not want to accept the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and are always trying to find fault with it and failing to apply the constraints given in it when applying logic and reasoning. In fact, they sometimes even label events whose understanding is simple if you apply the constraints therein given by calling them contradictions which they are not.
In addition, they often claim, without proof of course, that accounts about him by contemporary historians have been "doctored". Why, because they want to justify their none belief in their Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).
<<<"Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as "hostile" sources-writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias. " [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Interestingly, as noted by E.P. Sanders in his book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus," at page 49, he noted that most of the First Century literature that survives unto today that mentions Jesus (Yeshua) was written by a small elite class of Romans that detested him and considered his as "merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician."[source - The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders 1933, at page 49].
With respect C. Tacitus, It is well known that he hated Jesus (Yeshua) and regarded him as a troublesome rabble-rouser and had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a "deadly superstition," but readily admitted that this individual that he hated had existed as we have seen previously. <<<" His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Therefore the only conclusion is that Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person, and that more has been written about him than any other person in human history. <<<" Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate." !" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods: <<<"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [source - M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200 , as provided by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus on 03/19/2008]>>>.
And the New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus (Yeshua) that associated with him during his life and no such account exist for any other personage of antiquity.”[source - The Historic Jesus (Yeshua) Christ: at religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=jesus&thread=1206014571&page=1 on 4/19/2008]>>>.
Interestingly one of these worldly critics became a genuine believer in the authenticity of the books of the New Testament and the authorship of the Apostle Paul of the Pauline books after doing extensive work to disprove the books and the Apostle Paul’s authorship of them. He was Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a scholar and archaeologist of the first order who was born in Scotland on March 15, 1851, and died in Glasgow on April 20, 1939. We shall now consider his quest in brief:
THE QUEST OF SIR WILLIAM MITCHELL RAMSAY – SCHOLAR AND ARCHAEOLOGIST:
Sir William Ramsey was a disbeliever in the New Testament and started his research to show it was riddled with geographic and archaeological errors. He specifically started out in his quest to disprove scripture by focusing on the Book of Acts which was written by the Apostle Luke in Rome around 61 C.E. Before starting his quest, Ramsey diligently prepared for his goal of disproving the accuracy of the Book of Acts by undertaking and in-depth study of archaeology and geography.
But to his utter amazement, the more he investigated during his quarter century of research in what is now Israel, Syria, and Turkey where he carefully retraced the steps of the apostles as they were recorded in the Book of Acts, he became ever more convinced that his former belief that this book was riddled with error was historically correct.
His quest turned out very different than he had anticipated. His long research in the middle east after decades of examining the historical and geographical details detailed in the Book of Acts were absolutely correct. His findings caused his to have a complete change of how he viewed the writings of the Apostles; to wit, he turned from being a strong doubter to becoming a strong believer in the accuracy of the books of the New Testament. In fact, he became such a strong believer in their accuracy that he went on to write many books testifying to this accuracy. Some of his books on Biblical subjects were – note, he also authored many books on scientific subjects.:
The Letters to the Seven Churches
The church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170
Pauline & Other Studies in Early Christian History
Cities of St. Paul
The historical geography of Asia Minor.
Historical Commentary on Galatians
St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen
The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought, the Cities of Eastern Asia Minor
Luke the physician and other studies in the history of religion
The Education of Christ
Historical Commentary on First Corinthians
The Layman's Guide to the New Testament
Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?
Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul.
The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament Creator Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 Publisher London
The cities and bishoprics of Phrygia; being an essay of the local history of Phrygia from the earliest times to the Turkish conquest
Pictures of the Apostolic Church: Studies in the Book of Acts
Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization
Second Corinthians
Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years' Wanderings
The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915),
One comment on his books, <<<” ‘After decades of examining the historical and geographical details mentioned in the book, Ramsay concluded:’ "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1953, p. 80).”>>>.
Now let’s look at a brief Biography clearly shows Ramsey to be a great researcher, <<<”Classical scholar and archaeologist, as well as the foremost authority of his day on the topography, antiquities and history of Asia Minor in ancient times, William Mitchell Ramsay was born in Glasgow on 15 March 1851, the youngest son of Thomas Ramsay and Jane Mitchell, both of Alloa. Ramsay’s father died in 1857, and the family returned to its native shire to settle in a rural home near Alloa.
From the Gymnasium, Old Aberdeen, Ramsay went on to the University of Aberdeen and then won a scholarship at St. John's College, Oxford; there he obtained a first class in classical moderations (1874) and in literae humaniores (1876). In his second year at Oxford (1874), Ramsay benefited from the generosity of his maternal uncle and was able to spend the long vacation at Goettingen, studying Sanskrit under a great scholar, Theodor Benfey. This was a critical period of his life: then for the first time, in his own words, he 'gained some insight into modern methods of literary investigation', and his 'thoughts ever since turned towards the border lands between European and Asiatic civilization'. A further stimulus was received from Henry Jardine Bidder, of St. John's, a man of incisive mind and speech, who first opened his eyes to the true spirit of Hellenism and so helped to fit him for the work which he had in view.”[source – Gifford Lectures, at www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=143 on 4/19/2008]>>>.
So as can readily be seen, if one who does not believe does an objective research into the trustworthiness of the Bible as one skeptic, Sir William Ramsey, did, he/she will become a genuine believer.
NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THE WRITINGS OF SIR WILLIAM RAMSEY IN BRIEF:
First, though let’s consider an exert from the Catholic Encyclopedia on some of the research of Sir William Ramsay:
<<<” Ramsay was born in Glasgow, Scotland, the youngest son of a third-generation lawyer, Thomas Ramsay and his wife Jane Mitchell. His father died when he was six years old, and the family moved from the city to the family home in the country district near Alba. The help of his older brother and maternal uncle, Andrew Mitchell, made it possible for him to have a superior education. He studied at the University of Aberdeen, where he achieved high distinction. He won a scholarship to St. John's College, Oxford, where he obtained a first class in classical moderations (1874) and in literae humaniores (1876). He also studied Sanskrit under scholar Theodor Benfey at Göttingen.
In 1880, Ramsay received an Oxford studentship for travel and research in Greece. At Smyrna, he met Sir C. W. Wilson, then British consul-general in Anatolia, who advised him on inland areas suitable for exploration. Ramsay and Wilson made two long journeys in 1881-1882.
He travelled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. Greece and Turkey remained the focus of Ramsay's research for the remainder of his academic career. He was known for his expertise in the historic geography and topography of Asia Minor and of its political, social, cultural and religious history. He was Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford in 1882.
From 1885 to 1886, Ramsay held the newly created Lincoln and Merton professorship of classical archaeology and art at Oxford and became a fellow of Lincoln College (honorary fellow 1898). In 1886, Ramsay was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity at the University of Aberdeen. He remained affiliated with Aberdeen until his retirement in 1911. From 1880 onwards hereceived the honorary degrees of D.C.L. Oxford, LL.D. St Andrews and Glasgow, and D.D. Edinburgh. In 1906, Ramsay was knighted for his scholarly achievements on the four hundredth anniversary of the founding of the University of Aberdeen. He was elected a member of learned societies in Europe and America, and was awarded medals by the Royal Geographical Society, and the University of Pennsylvania.
7) The Galatian churches were evidently important ones. On the North-Galatian theory, St. Luke dismissed their conversion in a single sentence: "They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region" (Acts 16:6). This is strange, as his plan throughout is to give an account of the establishment of Christianity by St. Paul in each new region. Lightfoot fully admits the force of this, but tries to evade it by asking the question: "Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel?" But the subsequent failings of the Corinthians did not prevent St. Luke from giving an account of their conversion. Besides, the Galatians had not swerved so widely from the purity of the Gospel. The arguments of the judaizers made some of them waver, but they had not accepted circumcision; and this Epistle confirmed them in the Faith, so that a few years later St. Paul writes of them to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1): "Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also." It was long after the time that St. Paul could thus confidently command the Galatians that Acts was written.
(8) St. Paul makes no mention of this collection in our Epistle. According to the North-Galatian theory, the Epistle was written several years before the collection was made. In Acts 20:4, etc., a list is given of those who carried the collections to Jerusalem. There are representatives from South Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia; but there is no deputy from North Galatia -- from the towns of Jerusalem on occasion, the majority probably meeting at Corinth, St. Paul, St. Luke, and Sopater of Berea (probably representing Philippi and Achaia; see 2 Corinthians 8:18-22); Aristarchus and Secundus of Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothyof Lystra (S. Galatia); and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. There is not a word about anybody from North Galatia, the most probable reason being that St. Paul had never been there (see Rendall, Expositor, 1893, vol. II, p.321). (9) St. Paul, the Roman citizen, invariably employs the names of the roman provincces, such as Achaia, Macedonia, Asia; and it is not probable that he departed from this practice in his use of "Galatia". The people of South Galatia could with propriety be styled Galatians. Two of the towns, Antioch and Lystra, were Roman colonies; and the other two boasted of the Roman names, Claudio-Iconium, and Claudio-Derbe. "Galatians" was an honourable title when applied to them; but they would be insulted if they were called Phrygians or Lycaonians. All admit that St. Peter named the Roman provinces when he wrote "to the elect strangers dispersed throught Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1).
(10) The manner in which St. Paul mentions St. Barnabas in the Epistle indicates that the latter was known to those for whom the Epistle was primarily intended. St. Barnabas had visited South Galatia with St. Paul (Acts 13:14), but he was unknown in North Galatia.
(11) St. Paul states (ii, 5) that the reason for his course of action at Jerusalem was that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Galatians. This seems to imply that they were already converted. He had visited the southern part of the Galatian province before the council, but not northern. The view favoured above receives confirmation from a consideration, as appended, of the persons addressed.
THE KIND OF PEOPLE ADDRESSED
The country of South Galatia answers the conditions of the Epistle admirably; but this cannot be said of North Galatia. From the Epistle we gather that the majority were Gentile converts, that many were probably Jewish proselytes from their acquaintance with the Old Testament, that Jews who persecuted them from the first were living amongst them; that St. Paul had visited them twice, and that the few Judaziers appeared amongst them only after his last visit. We know from Acts, iii, xiv (and early history), that Jews were settled in South Galatia. During the first missionary journey unbelieving Jews made their presence felt everywhere. As soon as Paul and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch, some Jewish converts came from Judea and taught that the circumcision was necessary for them, and went up to the council, where it was decreed that circumcision and the Law of Moses were not necessary for the Gentiles; but nothing was determined as to the attitude of Jewish converts regarding them, following the example of St. James, though it was implied in the decree that they were matters of indifference. This was shown, soon after, by St. Peter's eating with the Gentiles. On his withdrawing from them, and when many others followed his example, St. Paul publicly vindicated the equality of the Gentile Christians. The majority agreed; but there must have been "false brethren" amongst them (Galatians 2:4) who were Christians only in name, and who hated St. Paul. Some of these, in all probability, followed him to South Galatia, soon after his second visit. But they could no longer teach the necessity of circumcision, as the Apostolic decrees had been already delivered there by St. Paul (Acts 16:4). These decrees are not mentioned in the Epistle by the Judaizers, the advisability of the Galatians accepting circumcision and the Law of Moses, for their greater perfection. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there were any Jews settled at this time in North Galatia (see Ramsay, "St. Paul The Traveller"). It was not the kind of country to attract them. The Gauls were a dominant class, living in castles, and leading a half pastoral, half nomadic life, and speaking their own Gallic language. The country was very sparsley populated by the subjugated agricultural inhabitants. During the long winter the ground was covered with snow; in summer the heat was intense and the ground parched; and one might travel many miles without meeting a human being. There was some fertile tracts; but the greater part was either poor pasture land, or barren undulating hilly ground. The bulk of the inhabitants in the few towns were not Gauls. Trade was small, and that mainly in wool. A decree of Augustus in favour of Jews was supposed to be framed for those at Ancyra, in Galatia. It is now known that it was addressed to quite a different region.
WHY WRITTEN
The Epistle was written to conteract the influence of a few Judaizers who had come amongst the Galatians, and were endeavouring to persuade them that in order to be perfect Christians it was necessary to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Their arguments were sufficiently specious to puzzle the Galatians, and their object was likely to gain the approval of unbelieving Jews. They said what St. Paul taught was good as far as it went; but that he had not taught the full perfection of Christianity. And this was not surprising, as he was not one of the great Apostles who had been taught by Christ Himself, and received their commission from Him. Whatever St. Paul knew he learned from others, and he had received his commission to preach not from Christ, but from men at Antioch (Acts 13). Circumcision and the Law, it is true, were not necessary to salvation; but they were essential to the full perfection of Christianity. This was proved by the example of St. James, of the other Apostles, and of the first disciples, at Jerusalem. On this very point this Paul, the Apostle, placed himself in direct opposition to Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles, at Antioch. His own action in circumcising Timothy showed what he expected of a personal companion, and he was now probably teaching the good of circumcision in other places. These statements puzzles the Galatians, and made them waver. They felt aggrieved that he had left them, as they thought, in an inferior position; they began to observe Jewish festivals, but they had not yet accepted circumcision. The Apostle refutes these arguments so effectively that the question never again arose. Henceforth his enemies confined themselves to personal attacks (see II Corinthians).
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE
The six chapters naturally fall into three divisions, consisting of two chapters each.
* In the first two chapters, after the general introduction, he shows that he is an Apostle not from men, nor through the teaching of any man, but from Christ; and the gospel he taught is in harmony with the teaching of the great Apostles, who gave him the right hand of fellowship.
* He next (iii, iv) shows the inefficacy of circumcision and the Law, and that we owe our redemption to Christ alone. He appeals to the experience of the Galatian converts, and brings forward proofs from Scripture.
He exhorts them (v, vi) not to abuse their freedom from the Law to indulge in crimes, "for they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." It is not for love of them he admonishes, that the Judaizers wish the Galatians to be circumcised. If there is virtue in the mere cutting of the flesh, the inference from the argument is that the Judaizers could become still more perfect by making themselves eunuchs -- mutilating themselves like the priests of Cybele. He writes the epilogue in large letters with his own hand.
IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE
As it is admitted on all hands that St. Paul wrote the Epistle, and as its authenticity has never been seriously called in question, it is important not only for its biographical data and direct teaching, but also for the teaching implies in it as being known at the time. He claims, at least indirectly, to have worked miracles amongst the Galatians, and that they received the Holy Ghost (iii, 5), almost in the words of St. Luke as to the events at Iconium (Acts 14:3). It is the Catholic doctrine that faith is a gratuitous gift of God; but is is the teaching of the Church, as it is of St. Paul, that the faith that is of any avail is "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6); and he states most emphatically that a good life is necessary for salvation; for, after enumeration the works of the flesh, he writes (v, 21), "Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall obtain the kingdom of God." In vi, 8, he writes: "For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh, also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting." The same teaching is found in others of his Epistles, and is in perfect agreement with St. James: "For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:2). The Epistle implies that the Galatians were well acquainted with the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Incarnation, Redemption, Baptism, Grace, etc. As he had never to defend his teaching to these points against Judaizers, and as the Epistle is so early, it is clear that his teaching was identical with that of the Twelve, and did not, even in appearance, lend itself to attack.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE
(1) Marcion asserted that it was the first of St. Paul's Epistles. Prof. Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, Aug., 1895, etc.) and a Catholic professor, Dr. Valentin Weber (see below), maintain that it was written from Antioch, before the council (A.D. 49-50). Weber's arguments are very plausible, but not quite convincing. There is a good summary of them in a review by Gayford, "Journal of Theological Studies", July, 1902. The two visits to Galatia are the double journey to Derbe and back. This solution is offered to obviate apparent discrepancies between Gal., ii, and Acts, xv.”[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia - Epistle to the Galatians]
And a quick look at what the Columbia Encyclopedia says on Galatians:
<<<” Galatians , letter of the New Testament. It is ascribed to St. Paul and addressed to ethnic Gauls living in central Asia Minor, or to inhabitants of the Roman province of Galatia in S Asia Minor. It may have been the earliest epistle (written c.AD 48); or, as many scholars hold, it may date after AD 52. Paul wrote the letter because the Galatians had been influenced by Judaizing Christians who asserted that circumcision was essential and that believers were bound to keep the law of Moses. They argued that Paul's emphasis on faith at the expense of law was his own invention. In the letter, Paul proceeds to anathematize anyone who preaches a gospel different from the one he preached to them. He defends his apostleship, claiming that he received his gospel from the risen Christ himself. His position is that God establishes people in a right relationship with God through faith in Jesus, not through the doing of works prescribed by the law. This is confirmed by the Galatians' own experience and by their understanding of the standing of Abraham before God. Relying on works of the law means being obligated to perform all its commands, or face the dire consequences. Paul demonstrates that the law was a temporary, though necessary, phenomenon in the religious experience of the people of God, until the coming of Christ. Paul espoused the belief that salvation could be achieved by faith alone, without having to comply with the demands of the Jewish law.
Bibliography: See studies by H. D. Betz (1979), R. Y. K. Fung (1988), and R. N. Longenecker (1990).
[source - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008 ] >>>.
And an exert from one of William Ramsay’s books dealing with Galatians:
<<<” THE Epistle to the Galatians is a document of the highest importance for students of history. Not merely is it a peculiarly important authority for all who study the early stages in the Christianisation of the Roman Empire: it also throws much light on the condition and society of one of the Eastern Roman Provinces during the first century of the Empire -- a difficult subject and an almost unknown land.
The study of this document is encumbered with a great preliminary difficulty. It is not certain who were the persons addressed. While some scholars maintain that the "Churches of Galatia," to whom the Epistle is addressed, were planted in the four cities of Southern Galatia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, others assert that those Churches were situated in North Galatia. These two opposite opinions are conveniently designated as the South Galatian and the North-Galatian Theory.
This doubt as to the destination of the Epistle hardly [2] affects the study of its dogmatic or doctrinal value, with which we are not concerned.
Even as regards its historical value, small importance might seem on a first superficial view to attach to the question whether the Churches addressed were situated in the south of the province or in the north. The distance of Pessinus, the nearest in the northern group, from Iconium in the southern is only about 120 miles. From Pessinus to Antioch is about 30 miles less as the crow flies, but almost as much as the traveller goes.
Similarly, the question has been discussed whether the so-called "Epistle to the Ephesians" was addressed to the Church of Ephesus or of Laodicea, or is a general Asian letter. The distance by road from Ephesus to Laodicea was 91 1/2 Roman miles. But it makes no very serious difference even to the historical student whether the letter was addressed to the one or the other city: no question as regards the time of composition, or the order of Paul's travels, or the history of the Church as a whole, is affected by the doubt.
But the doubt as regards the Galatian Churches stands on a quite different footing. The date when the letter was composed, the order and facts of Paul's travels, several important questions of general Church history, are all affected by the doubt. To the student of Roman history and society there are also serious differences between the two theories. The North-Galatian cities belong to quite a different line of development from the South-Galatian. See Sections 15, 17.
In this case, as in all other historical questions, the doubt is due to insufficiency of knowledge. The countries both of North and of South Galatia are most obscure. A good [3] deal has been done by modern scholars to illuminate the history of North Galatia in the pre-Roman period by collecting and comparing the references in literature; but little has been done for the Roman period. South Galatia was no more than a name, and hardly even a name, until within the last few years.” [source - A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul. By Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell]>>>.
And an exert from a book of Sir William Ramsay on the Epistle to the Romans:
<<<” IN any judicious system of interpretation, great stress must be laid on the introductory address of this Epistle. It should be compared with the address prefixed to the Epistle to the Romans, a letter which presents marked analogies in sentiment and topics. In each case Paul puts in his introduction the marrow of the whole letter. He says at first in a few words what he is going to say at length in the body of the letter, to repeat over and over, to emphasise from various points of view, and to drive home into the minds of his correspondents.
The important fact, upon which the whole letter turns, is that Paul had been a messenger straight from God to the Galatians. His message, as delivered originally to them, had been a message coming from God. No subsequent variation or change of message on the part of any person, himself or others, could affect that fundamental truth; and that fact has to be made to live and burn in their minds. Hence he begins by calling himself "an [238] apostle, not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the father".
Next he mentions those who join with him as the authors of the Epistle. He often quotes one or two individuals as joint-senders of a letter. Here, and here alone, he states that all the brethren who are with him are sending the letter to the Churches of Galatia. This important point calls for special consideration in Sec. II.
Thereafter he introduces the second leading thought of the whole Epistle -- that the action and person of Christ is sufficient for salvation. And so he adds "who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil world".
FOOTNOTES:
1 In the first draft of this Commentary, reference was frequently made to Lightfoot and to Zöckler, as representatives of English and German opinion. Subsequently, a few references have been added to the latest edition of Meyer's Commentary by Professor Sieffert, 1899.”[source - A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul. By Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, p. 237]>>>.
And, an exert from one of Sir William Ramsay’s books on the Acts of the Apostles:
<<<” THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
TRUSTWORTHINESS
[1] 1. TRUSTWORTHINESS. The aim of our work is to treat its subject as a department of history and of literature. Christianity was not merely a religion, but also, a system of life and action; and its introduction by Paul amid the society of the Roman Empire produced changes of momentous consequence, which the historian must study. What does the student of Roman history find in the subject of our investigation? How would an observant, educated, and unprejudiced citizen of the Roman Empire have regarded that new social force, that new philosophical system, if he had studied it with the eyes and the temper of a nineteenth century investigator?
As a preliminary the historian of Rome must make up his mind about the trustworthiness of the authorities. Those which we shall use are:(1) a work of history commonly entitled the Acts of the Apostles (the title does not originate from the author), (2) certain Epistles purporting to be written by Paul. Of the latter we make only slight and incidental use; and probably even those who dispute their authenticity would admit that the facts we use are trustworthy, as being the settled belief of the Church at a very early period. It is, therefore, unnecessary to touch on the authenticity of the Epistles; but the question as to the date, the composition, and the author of the Acts must be [2] discussed. If the main position of this book is admitted, it will furnish a secure basis for the Epistles to rest on.
...
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the con- [8] trary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions,. I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious objection to accepting it as entirely a first-century work. According to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul's work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important part of that work was devoted to a district in the northern part of the peninsula, called Galatia. It may appear at first sight a mere topographical subtlety whether Paul travelled through North Galatia or through Lycaonia; but, when you consider that any details given of his journeys must be false to the one side just in proportion as they are true to the other, you will perceive that, if you try to apply the narrative to the wrong side of the country, it will not suit the scene, and if it does not suit, then it must appear to be written by a person ignorant of what he pretends to know. The case might be illustrated from our own experience. Suppose [9] that an unknown person came to Auburn from New York, and you wished to find out whether he was an impostor or not. In our country we are exposed to frequent attempts at imposition, which can often be detected by a few questions; and you would probably ask him about his experiences on his journey from New York to Auburn. Now suppose you had been informed that he had come not along the direct road, but by a long detour through Boston, Montreal, and Toronto, and had thus arrived at Auburn; and suppose that you by questioning elicited from him various facts which suited only a route through Schenectady and Utica, you would condemn the man as an impostor, because he did not know the road which he pretended to have travelled. But suppose further that it was pointed out by some third party that this stranger had really travelled along the direct road, and that you had been misinformed when you supposed him to have come by the-round-about way, your opinion as to the stranger's truthfulness would be instantly affected. Precisely similar is the case of Acts as a record of travel; generations and centuries have been attempting to apply it to the wrong countries. I must speak on this point confidently and uncompromisingly, for the facts stand out so clear and bold and simple that to affect to hesitate or to profess any doubt as to one's judgment would be a betrayal of truth.” [source - St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TRUSTWORTHINESS, by Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, Introduction]>>>.
CONCLUSION:
In light of numerous archaeological discoveries, it can be said that no finding of modern archaeology has ever discredited a single historical detail of the Bible. Archaeology has, in fact, confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible to a greater degree than that of any other record of antiquity. This fact was highlighted by Sir William Ramsay, a former skeptic and critic of the New Testament after he did his extensive research and discovered to his great astonishment that he had just been plain wrong in his skepticism.
This fact with respect archaeology proving the Bible and owing many of their discoveries in the middle east as was noted by one writer as follows, <<< In fact if it were not for the Bible, historians might still be unaware that there ever was an Assyrian Empire because it was the Bible which prompted a maverick archaeologist to seek and find the Assyrian capital.1 The Bible also helped archaeologists recognize the Hittite Empire when they found it. Before these empires were found most historians dismissed Bible references to Assyrians or Hittites denying they ever existed and even after the Bible had been proven right secular historians retained their blind anti-Bible prejudice. However two outstanding archaeologists broke through this anti-Bible prejudice to prove the amazing historical accuracy of the Bible… Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, was once a student of the German historical critics; but after many years of skepticism and an unfavorable view of the Bible's accuracy, Ramsey changed his mind. Concerning Luke's ability as a historian, Ramsey concluded after over 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be place along with the very greatest of historians."9 Ramsey added in another work: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." [source - Dorm Bible Study by Jay Rogers]>>>.
Another writer said, “Ultimately atheist, William Ramsay, became Christian, William Ramsay. Ultimately he proved the reliability of the entire New Testament and he became a major Christian apologist in the early 1900's…. It was the evidence which convinced both Ramsay and Albright; both of them started with assumptions based on blind prejudice and ended with their faith based on facts…. Along with confirming the historical accuracy of the New Testament, both Ramsay and Albright showed that the New Testament was written soon after the time of Jesus. This early dating of the New Testament was important because the critics claimed most of the New Testament was not written until a century after Jesus by which time all Jesus' disciples, all the supposed authors of the gospels, would be dead. In other words the critics claimed the New Testament was mostly fraud.. Both Ramsay and Albright found the New Testament much too accurate to be fraudulent. You see, if fraudulent authors had written the New Testament 100 years after Jesus, they could not have included so many details and gotten them all right.”[source - Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume II formerly More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 340 Josh McDowell; Here's Life Publishers Inc.: P.O. Box 1576; San Bernardino, California, 92402: 1981]>>>.
For those who would like to go into this subject in more depth, they can go to the many books on biblical subjects written by Sir William Ramasy previously enumerated, and they can also go to and/or consider the following:
Here is some evidence that our Hebrew Old Testament (OT) texts are in essence the same as the original copies.
1. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew OT was dated around 1000 A.D. We also had large portions of the OT that were written around 900 A.D.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 200 B.C. and 68 A.D. Among other things they contain portions of every book of the OT except Esther.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a copy of Isaiah. That Isaiah which was written 125 B.C. is 95% the same as the Isaiah written around 916 A.D. and with our Isaiah today. Most of the differences are just obvious copying and spelling errors. The differences in Jeremiah are greater. Scholars are not sure why. It may be they copied from a manuscript of Jeremiah that was incomplete. As an aside, I'd like to note that textural questions in the OT often seem to involve numbers (which are easy to confuse).
4. The Masoretic or Hebrew text that the OT in our English Bibles is translated from is very close to the Septuagint or Greek translation of the OT made from the Hebrew text around 250 B.C.
Here is some evidence that our Hebrew Old Testament (OT) texts are in essence the same as the original copies.
1. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew OT was dated around 1000 A.D. We also had large portions of the OT that were written around 900 A.D.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 200 B.C. and 68 A.D. Among other things they contain portions of every book of the OT except Esther.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a copy of Isaiah. That Isaiah which was written 125 B.C. is 95% the same as the Isaiah written around 916 A.D. and with our Isaiah today. Most of the differences are just obvious copying and spelling errors. The differences in Jeremiah are greater. Scholars are not sure why. It may be they copied from a manuscript of Jeremiah that was incomplete. As an aside, I'd like to note that textural questions in the OT often seem to involve numbers (which are easy to confuse).
4. The Masoretic or Hebrew text that the OT in our English Bibles is translated from is very close to the Septuagint or Greek translation of the OT made from the Hebrew text around 250 B.C.
5. Durning the 5th century B.C. the first five books of the OT were written in the Samaritan text. This text agrees with our 10th century copy of the Masoretic or Hebrew OT.
6. We have over 2000 manuscripts of the OT.
7. "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell
8. "How The Bible Became A Book" by Terry Hall
9. "Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer contain much more detailed information about why we can trust the Bible.
10. Durning the 5th century B.C. the first five books of the OT were written in the Samaritan text. This text agrees with our 10th century copy of the Masoretic or Hebrew OT.
11. We have over 2000 manuscripts of the OT.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
INTRODUCTION:
There are many critics who question the trustworthiness of the New Testament and in particular question the Apostle Paul’s authorship of many of the Pauline books in it attributed to him, yet his authorship of these books is perhaps one of the most well documented of any book of antiquity. One item of criticism is that no original copies of any of his books is true, but there exist a multitude of very early copies of the books he authored; whereas, for many other historic authors of antiquity this is not the circumstance. Take Plato, the classic Greek philosopher, there exist NO early copies of any of his writings but only copies from centuries later, but none of these critics ever questions his authorship and/or the writings themselves – a pure case of hypocrisy on the part of the critics.
Of course these same so called worldly wise critics even have the audacity to question whether there ever was an historic Jesus (Yeshua), but I shall not cover this here except to give part of the introduction to a writing covering this in detail, as follows:
<<<”Worldly critics do not want to accept the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, and are always trying to find fault with it and failing to apply the constraints given in it when applying logic and reasoning. In fact, they sometimes even label events whose understanding is simple if you apply the constraints therein given by calling them contradictions which they are not.
In addition, they often claim, without proof of course, that accounts about him by contemporary historians have been "doctored". Why, because they want to justify their none belief in their Creator, Almighty God (YHWH).
<<<"Interestingly, the first type of records comes from what are known commonly as "hostile" sources-writers who mentioned Jesus in a negative light or derogatory fashion. Such penmen certainly were not predisposed to further the cause of Christ or otherwise to add credence to His existence. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They rejected His teachings and often reviled Him as well. Thus, one can appeal to them without the charge of built-in bias. " [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Interestingly, as noted by E.P. Sanders in his book, "The Historical Figure of Jesus," at page 49, he noted that most of the First Century literature that survives unto today that mentions Jesus (Yeshua) was written by a small elite class of Romans that detested him and considered his as "merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician."[source - The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders 1933, at page 49].
With respect C. Tacitus, It is well known that he hated Jesus (Yeshua) and regarded him as a troublesome rabble-rouser and had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a "deadly superstition," but readily admitted that this individual that he hated had existed as we have seen previously. <<<" His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Therefore the only conclusion is that Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person, and that more has been written about him than any other person in human history. <<<" Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate." !" [source - Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation, The Historical Christ-Fact or Fiction? by Kyle Butt, M.A., sub-part HOSTILE TESTIMONY]>>>.
Michael Grant stated (in 1977) that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods: <<<"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." [source - M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200 , as provided by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus on 03/19/2008]>>>.
And the New Testament is full of eyewitness accounts by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus (Yeshua) that associated with him during his life and no such account exist for any other personage of antiquity.”[source - The Historic Jesus (Yeshua) Christ: at religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=jesus&thread=1206014571&page=1 on 4/19/2008]>>>.
Interestingly one of these worldly critics became a genuine believer in the authenticity of the books of the New Testament and the authorship of the Apostle Paul of the Pauline books after doing extensive work to disprove the books and the Apostle Paul’s authorship of them. He was Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a scholar and archaeologist of the first order who was born in Scotland on March 15, 1851, and died in Glasgow on April 20, 1939. We shall now consider his quest in brief:
THE QUEST OF SIR WILLIAM MITCHELL RAMSAY – SCHOLAR AND ARCHAEOLOGIST:
Sir William Ramsey was a disbeliever in the New Testament and started his research to show it was riddled with geographic and archaeological errors. He specifically started out in his quest to disprove scripture by focusing on the Book of Acts which was written by the Apostle Luke in Rome around 61 C.E. Before starting his quest, Ramsey diligently prepared for his goal of disproving the accuracy of the Book of Acts by undertaking and in-depth study of archaeology and geography.
But to his utter amazement, the more he investigated during his quarter century of research in what is now Israel, Syria, and Turkey where he carefully retraced the steps of the apostles as they were recorded in the Book of Acts, he became ever more convinced that his former belief that this book was riddled with error was historically correct.
His quest turned out very different than he had anticipated. His long research in the middle east after decades of examining the historical and geographical details detailed in the Book of Acts were absolutely correct. His findings caused his to have a complete change of how he viewed the writings of the Apostles; to wit, he turned from being a strong doubter to becoming a strong believer in the accuracy of the books of the New Testament. In fact, he became such a strong believer in their accuracy that he went on to write many books testifying to this accuracy. Some of his books on Biblical subjects were – note, he also authored many books on scientific subjects.:
The Letters to the Seven Churches
The church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170
Pauline & Other Studies in Early Christian History
Cities of St. Paul
The historical geography of Asia Minor.
Historical Commentary on Galatians
St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen
The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought, the Cities of Eastern Asia Minor
Luke the physician and other studies in the history of religion
The Education of Christ
Historical Commentary on First Corinthians
The Layman's Guide to the New Testament
Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?
Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul.
The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament Creator Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 Publisher London
The cities and bishoprics of Phrygia; being an essay of the local history of Phrygia from the earliest times to the Turkish conquest
Pictures of the Apostolic Church: Studies in the Book of Acts
Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization
Second Corinthians
Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years' Wanderings
The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915),
One comment on his books, <<<” ‘After decades of examining the historical and geographical details mentioned in the book, Ramsay concluded:’ "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1953, p. 80).”>>>.
Now let’s look at a brief Biography clearly shows Ramsey to be a great researcher, <<<”Classical scholar and archaeologist, as well as the foremost authority of his day on the topography, antiquities and history of Asia Minor in ancient times, William Mitchell Ramsay was born in Glasgow on 15 March 1851, the youngest son of Thomas Ramsay and Jane Mitchell, both of Alloa. Ramsay’s father died in 1857, and the family returned to its native shire to settle in a rural home near Alloa.
From the Gymnasium, Old Aberdeen, Ramsay went on to the University of Aberdeen and then won a scholarship at St. John's College, Oxford; there he obtained a first class in classical moderations (1874) and in literae humaniores (1876). In his second year at Oxford (1874), Ramsay benefited from the generosity of his maternal uncle and was able to spend the long vacation at Goettingen, studying Sanskrit under a great scholar, Theodor Benfey. This was a critical period of his life: then for the first time, in his own words, he 'gained some insight into modern methods of literary investigation', and his 'thoughts ever since turned towards the border lands between European and Asiatic civilization'. A further stimulus was received from Henry Jardine Bidder, of St. John's, a man of incisive mind and speech, who first opened his eyes to the true spirit of Hellenism and so helped to fit him for the work which he had in view.”[source – Gifford Lectures, at www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=143 on 4/19/2008]>>>.
So as can readily be seen, if one who does not believe does an objective research into the trustworthiness of the Bible as one skeptic, Sir William Ramsey, did, he/she will become a genuine believer.
NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THE WRITINGS OF SIR WILLIAM RAMSEY IN BRIEF:
First, though let’s consider an exert from the Catholic Encyclopedia on some of the research of Sir William Ramsay:
<<<” Ramsay was born in Glasgow, Scotland, the youngest son of a third-generation lawyer, Thomas Ramsay and his wife Jane Mitchell. His father died when he was six years old, and the family moved from the city to the family home in the country district near Alba. The help of his older brother and maternal uncle, Andrew Mitchell, made it possible for him to have a superior education. He studied at the University of Aberdeen, where he achieved high distinction. He won a scholarship to St. John's College, Oxford, where he obtained a first class in classical moderations (1874) and in literae humaniores (1876). He also studied Sanskrit under scholar Theodor Benfey at Göttingen.
In 1880, Ramsay received an Oxford studentship for travel and research in Greece. At Smyrna, he met Sir C. W. Wilson, then British consul-general in Anatolia, who advised him on inland areas suitable for exploration. Ramsay and Wilson made two long journeys in 1881-1882.
He travelled widely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul's missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. Greece and Turkey remained the focus of Ramsay's research for the remainder of his academic career. He was known for his expertise in the historic geography and topography of Asia Minor and of its political, social, cultural and religious history. He was Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford in 1882.
From 1885 to 1886, Ramsay held the newly created Lincoln and Merton professorship of classical archaeology and art at Oxford and became a fellow of Lincoln College (honorary fellow 1898). In 1886, Ramsay was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity at the University of Aberdeen. He remained affiliated with Aberdeen until his retirement in 1911. From 1880 onwards hereceived the honorary degrees of D.C.L. Oxford, LL.D. St Andrews and Glasgow, and D.D. Edinburgh. In 1906, Ramsay was knighted for his scholarly achievements on the four hundredth anniversary of the founding of the University of Aberdeen. He was elected a member of learned societies in Europe and America, and was awarded medals by the Royal Geographical Society, and the University of Pennsylvania.
7) The Galatian churches were evidently important ones. On the North-Galatian theory, St. Luke dismissed their conversion in a single sentence: "They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region" (Acts 16:6). This is strange, as his plan throughout is to give an account of the establishment of Christianity by St. Paul in each new region. Lightfoot fully admits the force of this, but tries to evade it by asking the question: "Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel?" But the subsequent failings of the Corinthians did not prevent St. Luke from giving an account of their conversion. Besides, the Galatians had not swerved so widely from the purity of the Gospel. The arguments of the judaizers made some of them waver, but they had not accepted circumcision; and this Epistle confirmed them in the Faith, so that a few years later St. Paul writes of them to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1): "Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also." It was long after the time that St. Paul could thus confidently command the Galatians that Acts was written.
(8) St. Paul makes no mention of this collection in our Epistle. According to the North-Galatian theory, the Epistle was written several years before the collection was made. In Acts 20:4, etc., a list is given of those who carried the collections to Jerusalem. There are representatives from South Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia; but there is no deputy from North Galatia -- from the towns of Jerusalem on occasion, the majority probably meeting at Corinth, St. Paul, St. Luke, and Sopater of Berea (probably representing Philippi and Achaia; see 2 Corinthians 8:18-22); Aristarchus and Secundus of Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothyof Lystra (S. Galatia); and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. There is not a word about anybody from North Galatia, the most probable reason being that St. Paul had never been there (see Rendall, Expositor, 1893, vol. II, p.321). (9) St. Paul, the Roman citizen, invariably employs the names of the roman provincces, such as Achaia, Macedonia, Asia; and it is not probable that he departed from this practice in his use of "Galatia". The people of South Galatia could with propriety be styled Galatians. Two of the towns, Antioch and Lystra, were Roman colonies; and the other two boasted of the Roman names, Claudio-Iconium, and Claudio-Derbe. "Galatians" was an honourable title when applied to them; but they would be insulted if they were called Phrygians or Lycaonians. All admit that St. Peter named the Roman provinces when he wrote "to the elect strangers dispersed throught Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1).
(10) The manner in which St. Paul mentions St. Barnabas in the Epistle indicates that the latter was known to those for whom the Epistle was primarily intended. St. Barnabas had visited South Galatia with St. Paul (Acts 13:14), but he was unknown in North Galatia.
(11) St. Paul states (ii, 5) that the reason for his course of action at Jerusalem was that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Galatians. This seems to imply that they were already converted. He had visited the southern part of the Galatian province before the council, but not northern. The view favoured above receives confirmation from a consideration, as appended, of the persons addressed.
THE KIND OF PEOPLE ADDRESSED
The country of South Galatia answers the conditions of the Epistle admirably; but this cannot be said of North Galatia. From the Epistle we gather that the majority were Gentile converts, that many were probably Jewish proselytes from their acquaintance with the Old Testament, that Jews who persecuted them from the first were living amongst them; that St. Paul had visited them twice, and that the few Judaziers appeared amongst them only after his last visit. We know from Acts, iii, xiv (and early history), that Jews were settled in South Galatia. During the first missionary journey unbelieving Jews made their presence felt everywhere. As soon as Paul and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch, some Jewish converts came from Judea and taught that the circumcision was necessary for them, and went up to the council, where it was decreed that circumcision and the Law of Moses were not necessary for the Gentiles; but nothing was determined as to the attitude of Jewish converts regarding them, following the example of St. James, though it was implied in the decree that they were matters of indifference. This was shown, soon after, by St. Peter's eating with the Gentiles. On his withdrawing from them, and when many others followed his example, St. Paul publicly vindicated the equality of the Gentile Christians. The majority agreed; but there must have been "false brethren" amongst them (Galatians 2:4) who were Christians only in name, and who hated St. Paul. Some of these, in all probability, followed him to South Galatia, soon after his second visit. But they could no longer teach the necessity of circumcision, as the Apostolic decrees had been already delivered there by St. Paul (Acts 16:4). These decrees are not mentioned in the Epistle by the Judaizers, the advisability of the Galatians accepting circumcision and the Law of Moses, for their greater perfection. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there were any Jews settled at this time in North Galatia (see Ramsay, "St. Paul The Traveller"). It was not the kind of country to attract them. The Gauls were a dominant class, living in castles, and leading a half pastoral, half nomadic life, and speaking their own Gallic language. The country was very sparsley populated by the subjugated agricultural inhabitants. During the long winter the ground was covered with snow; in summer the heat was intense and the ground parched; and one might travel many miles without meeting a human being. There was some fertile tracts; but the greater part was either poor pasture land, or barren undulating hilly ground. The bulk of the inhabitants in the few towns were not Gauls. Trade was small, and that mainly in wool. A decree of Augustus in favour of Jews was supposed to be framed for those at Ancyra, in Galatia. It is now known that it was addressed to quite a different region.
WHY WRITTEN
The Epistle was written to conteract the influence of a few Judaizers who had come amongst the Galatians, and were endeavouring to persuade them that in order to be perfect Christians it was necessary to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Their arguments were sufficiently specious to puzzle the Galatians, and their object was likely to gain the approval of unbelieving Jews. They said what St. Paul taught was good as far as it went; but that he had not taught the full perfection of Christianity. And this was not surprising, as he was not one of the great Apostles who had been taught by Christ Himself, and received their commission from Him. Whatever St. Paul knew he learned from others, and he had received his commission to preach not from Christ, but from men at Antioch (Acts 13). Circumcision and the Law, it is true, were not necessary to salvation; but they were essential to the full perfection of Christianity. This was proved by the example of St. James, of the other Apostles, and of the first disciples, at Jerusalem. On this very point this Paul, the Apostle, placed himself in direct opposition to Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles, at Antioch. His own action in circumcising Timothy showed what he expected of a personal companion, and he was now probably teaching the good of circumcision in other places. These statements puzzles the Galatians, and made them waver. They felt aggrieved that he had left them, as they thought, in an inferior position; they began to observe Jewish festivals, but they had not yet accepted circumcision. The Apostle refutes these arguments so effectively that the question never again arose. Henceforth his enemies confined themselves to personal attacks (see II Corinthians).
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE
The six chapters naturally fall into three divisions, consisting of two chapters each.
* In the first two chapters, after the general introduction, he shows that he is an Apostle not from men, nor through the teaching of any man, but from Christ; and the gospel he taught is in harmony with the teaching of the great Apostles, who gave him the right hand of fellowship.
* He next (iii, iv) shows the inefficacy of circumcision and the Law, and that we owe our redemption to Christ alone. He appeals to the experience of the Galatian converts, and brings forward proofs from Scripture.
He exhorts them (v, vi) not to abuse their freedom from the Law to indulge in crimes, "for they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." It is not for love of them he admonishes, that the Judaizers wish the Galatians to be circumcised. If there is virtue in the mere cutting of the flesh, the inference from the argument is that the Judaizers could become still more perfect by making themselves eunuchs -- mutilating themselves like the priests of Cybele. He writes the epilogue in large letters with his own hand.
IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE
As it is admitted on all hands that St. Paul wrote the Epistle, and as its authenticity has never been seriously called in question, it is important not only for its biographical data and direct teaching, but also for the teaching implies in it as being known at the time. He claims, at least indirectly, to have worked miracles amongst the Galatians, and that they received the Holy Ghost (iii, 5), almost in the words of St. Luke as to the events at Iconium (Acts 14:3). It is the Catholic doctrine that faith is a gratuitous gift of God; but is is the teaching of the Church, as it is of St. Paul, that the faith that is of any avail is "faith that worketh by charity" (Galatians 5:6); and he states most emphatically that a good life is necessary for salvation; for, after enumeration the works of the flesh, he writes (v, 21), "Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall obtain the kingdom of God." In vi, 8, he writes: "For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh, also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting." The same teaching is found in others of his Epistles, and is in perfect agreement with St. James: "For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:2). The Epistle implies that the Galatians were well acquainted with the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Incarnation, Redemption, Baptism, Grace, etc. As he had never to defend his teaching to these points against Judaizers, and as the Epistle is so early, it is clear that his teaching was identical with that of the Twelve, and did not, even in appearance, lend itself to attack.
DATE OF THE EPISTLE
(1) Marcion asserted that it was the first of St. Paul's Epistles. Prof. Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, Aug., 1895, etc.) and a Catholic professor, Dr. Valentin Weber (see below), maintain that it was written from Antioch, before the council (A.D. 49-50). Weber's arguments are very plausible, but not quite convincing. There is a good summary of them in a review by Gayford, "Journal of Theological Studies", July, 1902. The two visits to Galatia are the double journey to Derbe and back. This solution is offered to obviate apparent discrepancies between Gal., ii, and Acts, xv.”[source - The Catholic Encyclopedia - Epistle to the Galatians]
And a quick look at what the Columbia Encyclopedia says on Galatians:
<<<” Galatians , letter of the New Testament. It is ascribed to St. Paul and addressed to ethnic Gauls living in central Asia Minor, or to inhabitants of the Roman province of Galatia in S Asia Minor. It may have been the earliest epistle (written c.AD 48); or, as many scholars hold, it may date after AD 52. Paul wrote the letter because the Galatians had been influenced by Judaizing Christians who asserted that circumcision was essential and that believers were bound to keep the law of Moses. They argued that Paul's emphasis on faith at the expense of law was his own invention. In the letter, Paul proceeds to anathematize anyone who preaches a gospel different from the one he preached to them. He defends his apostleship, claiming that he received his gospel from the risen Christ himself. His position is that God establishes people in a right relationship with God through faith in Jesus, not through the doing of works prescribed by the law. This is confirmed by the Galatians' own experience and by their understanding of the standing of Abraham before God. Relying on works of the law means being obligated to perform all its commands, or face the dire consequences. Paul demonstrates that the law was a temporary, though necessary, phenomenon in the religious experience of the people of God, until the coming of Christ. Paul espoused the belief that salvation could be achieved by faith alone, without having to comply with the demands of the Jewish law.
Bibliography: See studies by H. D. Betz (1979), R. Y. K. Fung (1988), and R. N. Longenecker (1990).
[source - The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2008 ] >>>.
And an exert from one of William Ramsay’s books dealing with Galatians:
<<<” THE Epistle to the Galatians is a document of the highest importance for students of history. Not merely is it a peculiarly important authority for all who study the early stages in the Christianisation of the Roman Empire: it also throws much light on the condition and society of one of the Eastern Roman Provinces during the first century of the Empire -- a difficult subject and an almost unknown land.
The study of this document is encumbered with a great preliminary difficulty. It is not certain who were the persons addressed. While some scholars maintain that the "Churches of Galatia," to whom the Epistle is addressed, were planted in the four cities of Southern Galatia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, others assert that those Churches were situated in North Galatia. These two opposite opinions are conveniently designated as the South Galatian and the North-Galatian Theory.
This doubt as to the destination of the Epistle hardly [2] affects the study of its dogmatic or doctrinal value, with which we are not concerned.
Even as regards its historical value, small importance might seem on a first superficial view to attach to the question whether the Churches addressed were situated in the south of the province or in the north. The distance of Pessinus, the nearest in the northern group, from Iconium in the southern is only about 120 miles. From Pessinus to Antioch is about 30 miles less as the crow flies, but almost as much as the traveller goes.
Similarly, the question has been discussed whether the so-called "Epistle to the Ephesians" was addressed to the Church of Ephesus or of Laodicea, or is a general Asian letter. The distance by road from Ephesus to Laodicea was 91 1/2 Roman miles. But it makes no very serious difference even to the historical student whether the letter was addressed to the one or the other city: no question as regards the time of composition, or the order of Paul's travels, or the history of the Church as a whole, is affected by the doubt.
But the doubt as regards the Galatian Churches stands on a quite different footing. The date when the letter was composed, the order and facts of Paul's travels, several important questions of general Church history, are all affected by the doubt. To the student of Roman history and society there are also serious differences between the two theories. The North-Galatian cities belong to quite a different line of development from the South-Galatian. See Sections 15, 17.
In this case, as in all other historical questions, the doubt is due to insufficiency of knowledge. The countries both of North and of South Galatia are most obscure. A good [3] deal has been done by modern scholars to illuminate the history of North Galatia in the pre-Roman period by collecting and comparing the references in literature; but little has been done for the Roman period. South Galatia was no more than a name, and hardly even a name, until within the last few years.” [source - A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul. By Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell]>>>.
And an exert from a book of Sir William Ramsay on the Epistle to the Romans:
<<<” IN any judicious system of interpretation, great stress must be laid on the introductory address of this Epistle. It should be compared with the address prefixed to the Epistle to the Romans, a letter which presents marked analogies in sentiment and topics. In each case Paul puts in his introduction the marrow of the whole letter. He says at first in a few words what he is going to say at length in the body of the letter, to repeat over and over, to emphasise from various points of view, and to drive home into the minds of his correspondents.
The important fact, upon which the whole letter turns, is that Paul had been a messenger straight from God to the Galatians. His message, as delivered originally to them, had been a message coming from God. No subsequent variation or change of message on the part of any person, himself or others, could affect that fundamental truth; and that fact has to be made to live and burn in their minds. Hence he begins by calling himself "an [238] apostle, not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the father".
Next he mentions those who join with him as the authors of the Epistle. He often quotes one or two individuals as joint-senders of a letter. Here, and here alone, he states that all the brethren who are with him are sending the letter to the Churches of Galatia. This important point calls for special consideration in Sec. II.
Thereafter he introduces the second leading thought of the whole Epistle -- that the action and person of Christ is sufficient for salvation. And so he adds "who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil world".
FOOTNOTES:
1 In the first draft of this Commentary, reference was frequently made to Lightfoot and to Zöckler, as representatives of English and German opinion. Subsequently, a few references have been added to the latest edition of Meyer's Commentary by Professor Sieffert, 1899.”[source - A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. Society and Religion in Central Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul. By Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, p. 237]>>>.
And, an exert from one of Sir William Ramsay’s books on the Acts of the Apostles:
<<<” THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
TRUSTWORTHINESS
[1] 1. TRUSTWORTHINESS. The aim of our work is to treat its subject as a department of history and of literature. Christianity was not merely a religion, but also, a system of life and action; and its introduction by Paul amid the society of the Roman Empire produced changes of momentous consequence, which the historian must study. What does the student of Roman history find in the subject of our investigation? How would an observant, educated, and unprejudiced citizen of the Roman Empire have regarded that new social force, that new philosophical system, if he had studied it with the eyes and the temper of a nineteenth century investigator?
As a preliminary the historian of Rome must make up his mind about the trustworthiness of the authorities. Those which we shall use are:(1) a work of history commonly entitled the Acts of the Apostles (the title does not originate from the author), (2) certain Epistles purporting to be written by Paul. Of the latter we make only slight and incidental use; and probably even those who dispute their authenticity would admit that the facts we use are trustworthy, as being the settled belief of the Church at a very early period. It is, therefore, unnecessary to touch on the authenticity of the Epistles; but the question as to the date, the composition, and the author of the Acts must be [2] discussed. If the main position of this book is admitted, it will furnish a secure basis for the Epistles to rest on.
...
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the con- [8] trary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions,. I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious objection to accepting it as entirely a first-century work. According to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul's work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important part of that work was devoted to a district in the northern part of the peninsula, called Galatia. It may appear at first sight a mere topographical subtlety whether Paul travelled through North Galatia or through Lycaonia; but, when you consider that any details given of his journeys must be false to the one side just in proportion as they are true to the other, you will perceive that, if you try to apply the narrative to the wrong side of the country, it will not suit the scene, and if it does not suit, then it must appear to be written by a person ignorant of what he pretends to know. The case might be illustrated from our own experience. Suppose [9] that an unknown person came to Auburn from New York, and you wished to find out whether he was an impostor or not. In our country we are exposed to frequent attempts at imposition, which can often be detected by a few questions; and you would probably ask him about his experiences on his journey from New York to Auburn. Now suppose you had been informed that he had come not along the direct road, but by a long detour through Boston, Montreal, and Toronto, and had thus arrived at Auburn; and suppose that you by questioning elicited from him various facts which suited only a route through Schenectady and Utica, you would condemn the man as an impostor, because he did not know the road which he pretended to have travelled. But suppose further that it was pointed out by some third party that this stranger had really travelled along the direct road, and that you had been misinformed when you supposed him to have come by the-round-about way, your opinion as to the stranger's truthfulness would be instantly affected. Precisely similar is the case of Acts as a record of travel; generations and centuries have been attempting to apply it to the wrong countries. I must speak on this point confidently and uncompromisingly, for the facts stand out so clear and bold and simple that to affect to hesitate or to profess any doubt as to one's judgment would be a betrayal of truth.” [source - St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES TRUSTWORTHINESS, by Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, Introduction]>>>.
CONCLUSION:
In light of numerous archaeological discoveries, it can be said that no finding of modern archaeology has ever discredited a single historical detail of the Bible. Archaeology has, in fact, confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible to a greater degree than that of any other record of antiquity. This fact was highlighted by Sir William Ramsay, a former skeptic and critic of the New Testament after he did his extensive research and discovered to his great astonishment that he had just been plain wrong in his skepticism.
This fact with respect archaeology proving the Bible and owing many of their discoveries in the middle east as was noted by one writer as follows, <<< In fact if it were not for the Bible, historians might still be unaware that there ever was an Assyrian Empire because it was the Bible which prompted a maverick archaeologist to seek and find the Assyrian capital.1 The Bible also helped archaeologists recognize the Hittite Empire when they found it. Before these empires were found most historians dismissed Bible references to Assyrians or Hittites denying they ever existed and even after the Bible had been proven right secular historians retained their blind anti-Bible prejudice. However two outstanding archaeologists broke through this anti-Bible prejudice to prove the amazing historical accuracy of the Bible… Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, was once a student of the German historical critics; but after many years of skepticism and an unfavorable view of the Bible's accuracy, Ramsey changed his mind. Concerning Luke's ability as a historian, Ramsey concluded after over 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be place along with the very greatest of historians."9 Ramsey added in another work: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." [source - Dorm Bible Study by Jay Rogers]>>>.
Another writer said, “Ultimately atheist, William Ramsay, became Christian, William Ramsay. Ultimately he proved the reliability of the entire New Testament and he became a major Christian apologist in the early 1900's…. It was the evidence which convinced both Ramsay and Albright; both of them started with assumptions based on blind prejudice and ended with their faith based on facts…. Along with confirming the historical accuracy of the New Testament, both Ramsay and Albright showed that the New Testament was written soon after the time of Jesus. This early dating of the New Testament was important because the critics claimed most of the New Testament was not written until a century after Jesus by which time all Jesus' disciples, all the supposed authors of the gospels, would be dead. In other words the critics claimed the New Testament was mostly fraud.. Both Ramsay and Albright found the New Testament much too accurate to be fraudulent. You see, if fraudulent authors had written the New Testament 100 years after Jesus, they could not have included so many details and gotten them all right.”[source - Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volume II formerly More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 340 Josh McDowell; Here's Life Publishers Inc.: P.O. Box 1576; San Bernardino, California, 92402: 1981]>>>.
For those who would like to go into this subject in more depth, they can go to the many books on biblical subjects written by Sir William Ramasy previously enumerated, and they can also go to and/or consider the following:
Here is some evidence that our Hebrew Old Testament (OT) texts are in essence the same as the original copies.
1. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew OT was dated around 1000 A.D. We also had large portions of the OT that were written around 900 A.D.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 200 B.C. and 68 A.D. Among other things they contain portions of every book of the OT except Esther.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a copy of Isaiah. That Isaiah which was written 125 B.C. is 95% the same as the Isaiah written around 916 A.D. and with our Isaiah today. Most of the differences are just obvious copying and spelling errors. The differences in Jeremiah are greater. Scholars are not sure why. It may be they copied from a manuscript of Jeremiah that was incomplete. As an aside, I'd like to note that textural questions in the OT often seem to involve numbers (which are easy to confuse).
4. The Masoretic or Hebrew text that the OT in our English Bibles is translated from is very close to the Septuagint or Greek translation of the OT made from the Hebrew text around 250 B.C.
Here is some evidence that our Hebrew Old Testament (OT) texts are in essence the same as the original copies.
1. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 the oldest complete copy of the Hebrew OT was dated around 1000 A.D. We also had large portions of the OT that were written around 900 A.D.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written between 200 B.C. and 68 A.D. Among other things they contain portions of every book of the OT except Esther.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a copy of Isaiah. That Isaiah which was written 125 B.C. is 95% the same as the Isaiah written around 916 A.D. and with our Isaiah today. Most of the differences are just obvious copying and spelling errors. The differences in Jeremiah are greater. Scholars are not sure why. It may be they copied from a manuscript of Jeremiah that was incomplete. As an aside, I'd like to note that textural questions in the OT often seem to involve numbers (which are easy to confuse).
4. The Masoretic or Hebrew text that the OT in our English Bibles is translated from is very close to the Septuagint or Greek translation of the OT made from the Hebrew text around 250 B.C.
5. Durning the 5th century B.C. the first five books of the OT were written in the Samaritan text. This text agrees with our 10th century copy of the Masoretic or Hebrew OT.
6. We have over 2000 manuscripts of the OT.
7. "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell
8. "How The Bible Became A Book" by Terry Hall
9. "Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason Archer contain much more detailed information about why we can trust the Bible.
10. Durning the 5th century B.C. the first five books of the OT were written in the Samaritan text. This text agrees with our 10th century copy of the Masoretic or Hebrew OT.
11. We have over 2000 manuscripts of the OT.
Your Friend in Christ Iris89