Moreover, there was probably difficulty and danger involved in spreading a new faith. The Jews would oppose it because the idea of Jesus’ being the Messiah was contrary to Jewish expectations and because the disciples could not avoid implicitly accusing the Jewish leadership of an unjust and cruel murder. The pagan religions would not be sympathetic to the Christian faith either, since Christians did not acknowledge the existence of any other god. So even if there were no widespread program of persecution, random outbursts of violence against Christians probably occurred.
Finally, the very nature of the case requires that these early gospel preachers must have experienced a great change in their lives. For now they were involved in preaching, prayer, religious meetings, and teaching new converts.
What one would expect from the general nature of the case is, in fact, precisely what history tells us actually happened. The Roman historian Tacitus relates the persecution by Nero about thirty years after Jesus’ death, when Christians were smeared with pitch and used as human torches to illuminate the night, while Nero rode about Rome in the costume of a charioteer, viewing the spectacle. The testimonies of the Roman authors Seutonius and Juvenal confirm that within thirty-one years after Jesus’ death, Christians were dying for their faith. From the writings of Pliny the Younger, Martial, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, it is clear that the believers voluntarily submitted to torture and death rather than renounce their faith. That suffering is often mentioned in Christian writings as well. For example, Jesus’ predictions that His followers would be persecuted were either real predictions come true or else were put back into His mouth because persecution had come about. Either way, it shows that Christians were suffering for their faith. In the book of Acts in the New Testament, the believers’ suffering is described soberly and without extravagance. The letters in the New Testament abound with references to persecution and with commands to hold fast. The early Christian writers, Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, and Ignatius mention the sufferings that the Christians were undergoing. They also bear witness that the Christian believers had adopted a new way of life.
As for subpoint (b), it is equally clear that those early Christians were suffering for a miraculous story. The gospel story is a story of miracles, and we have no other story than the one contained in the gospels. The early letters of Barnabas and Clement refer to Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. Polycarp mentions the resurrection of Jesus, and Irenaeus writes that as a young man he had heard Polycarp tell of Jesus’ miracles. Ignatius reports that people were still living who had been healed by Jesus. Justin Martyr refers to the miracles of Jesus. No trace of a nonmiraculous story exists. That an original nonmiraculous story should be completely lost and another miraculous story replace it goes beyond any known example of corruption of even oral tradition, not to speak of written historical transmission. The gospels themselves indicate that the story they were telling was not their own invention, but that it was already widely known and told.
Thus, it is clear that the miraculous story in the gospels was the story which the Christian believers had from the beginning. This means that the resurrection of Jesus was always a part of that story. Were we to stop here, says Paley, we would have a situation unparalleled in history: that during the reign of Tiberius Caesar certain persons began a new religious faith and that in so doing they voluntarily submitted to great dangers, suffering, and labor, all for a miraculous story that they proclaimed wherever they went, and that the resurrection of a dead man whom they had known well was an integral part of that story.
But we need not stop here, continues Paley. We should rather now ask, Were the gospels really written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If even one gospel can be shown to be genuine, then that will be enough to ensure the truth of the story.
Paley suggests several considerations that all point to the authenticity of the gospels. The apostles, he argues, would eventually have needed to publish accurate accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry, in which case any false gospels would be discredited and the genuine gospels preserved. Also the agreement between the four gospels, even when common sources behind them are acknowledged, and between the gospels and the New Testament letters shows that the story is historically trustworthy. The Hebrew and Syriac expressions in the gospels are what we would expect from the authors usually assigned to the gospels. If it were so easy to produce works under false names, then we would have more forged writings attributed to Jesus Himself. There was widespread early agreement that the gospels were genuine writings of their commonly accepted authors. In fact, Paley remarks, there is no more reason to doubt that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John than there is to doubt that the works of secular authors like Philo or Josephus come from their authors. The only reason skeptics doubt the gospels’ authenticity is that it is a miraculous story, and skeptics simply refuse to accept miracles.
All of the above considerations are important, states Paley. But the strongest argument that the gospels are genuine writings of their authors is ancient testimony to that fact. Here Paley expounds an elaborate eleven-point argument:
1. The gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers, beginning with those from the time of the apostles themselves and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author. This method, when applied to the gospels and Acts, establishes without question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome also quotes words of Jesus found in Matthew. The Shepherd of Hermas alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader in Antioch about thirty-seven years after Christ’s death alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary, Polycarp, who knew personally the disciple John and other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry, refers to different New Testament works some forty times. Papias, who also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels; the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently quotes the gospels; he does not specify which gospel he is quoting, which shows that the four gospels must have been the only ones in existence at that time. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the four gospel writers. Paley traces this chain of ancient writers all the way to Eusebius in A.D. 315.
2. The books of the New Testament were always quoted as authoritative and as one of a kind. The ancient writers did not quote them as they would quote any ordinary piece of literature. These books were special and unique and possessed final authority on what they said. Paley provides quotations from Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolitus, Origen, and many others to prove the point.
3. The books of the New Testament were collected as one volume at a very early date. Today we divide the New Testament into the gospels (the story of Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection) and the epistles (the letters written by the early apostles like Paul, Peter, and John). The ancient writers made a similar distinction, only they called it the Gospels and the Apostles. Ignatius mentions collections of New Testament books into the Gospels and the Apostles. According to Eusebius, Quadratus distributed the gospels to converts during his travels. Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writings that we today call the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian also refer to the division of Scripture into the Gospels and Apostles. This shows that the gospels were collected together by the early church.