When it comes to
evidence and arguments supporting the Bible's veracity, there are a
number of angles to take. In general, these fall into the categories of
archaeology, manuscripts, secular sources and internal evidence.
Internal evidence can be prophecies confirmed to originate before their
fulfillment, consistencies that are too difficult to forge, and certain
details that prove the authenticity of the text. This note is about
those certain details.
The overall argument goes like this: We know that many people in Judea, Samaria and Galilee, where the events recorded in the gospels took place, believed what the earliest Christians were preaching. The founders of Christianity, and those who wrote the books of the New Testament, were to a large degree believed. That's why Christianity is such a large religion today. We also have a quote from Tacitus - a secular source - confirming this.
A couple things we can take from this quotation: 1) Tacitus was not a friend of Christianity, and therefore had no reason to give helpful testimony (that is now used 1900 years later). 2) Christianity had spread all the way to Rome at the time of Nero's reign (54-68 AD), and it was popular. And most relevant to this note, 3) Christianity originated in Judea. Now why does this matter? Because we have manuscript evidence that places practically all of the books of the New Testament, and especially the four gospels and Acts, in the first century. And you would be hard pressed to find a credible scholar to argue otherwise. If we know that the gospel accounts were written in the first century, and we know that many people believed them in the first century - in the region that the events took place - there is great evidence of their veracity.
Why is that? Well, if someone wrote a fictional account about your hometown, saying something like your high school principle was miraculously cured of cancer, and the mayor's son was raised from the dead, there's no way you would believe it unless you talked to the principle or the mayor's son. Even if the story was written 50 years after it allegedly took place, you would know if such a story was false or true. Any story that includes such details as names of prominent people, specific locations, the time of year that things happened, and plenty of miraculous events, if it is fiction trying to be sold as reality, has zero chance of being believed. The gospel accounts do include such details, AND they were believed. We must ask ourselves, how?
Let me illustrate the argument with specific examples:
John the Baptist
John the Baptist is a major figure in the gospel accounts. We learn about his lifestyle ( Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). We know the name of his father and mother (Luke 1:57-66). We can read at least some of his teaching (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1:19-27 and John 3:23-36). We can read how he died (Matthew 14:1-12, Mark 6:14-29). And something that would really catch the reader's attention, the gospels claim that he was believed to be a prophet (Luke 20:6). If a person read this, he would expect John to be a well known figure (John the Baptist was mentioned by Josephus the Jewish historian). He would expect people who could confirm or deny the description of John that the gospel writers provide. And as I mentioned, the gospel writers provide a pretty thorough description. So if what they said about John the Baptist - including his testimony concerning Jesus - was false, their credibility would be shot. Disciples of John would come forth and say, "no, that's not how it was." If John the Baptist never existed, the forgery would be that much more obvious, considering the renown of John in the gospel accounts. If what the gospel writers said about John the Baptist was true, even second and third generations would have heard about him. The first century reader would expect this, given the description that the writers provide.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea
The gospel writers surely did not shy away from making mention of prominent people in their area. There are two members of the Sanhedrin (the central Jewish court and legislature) in the gospels, and both have a significant role. We read about Nicodemus in the third chapter of John's gospel. He was sneaking away to talk to Jesus, almost certainly because he was afraid of losing his position on the Council. We also read how Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin, requested Jesus' body and buried it. We read that Nicodemus accompanied him (John19:39), that he was secretly a disciple (John 19:38), and Mark says he went "boldly" to Pilate (Mark 15:43). Now if Joseph and Nicodemus were secretly disciples up until this point, and something like the unusual darkness at the crucifixion (Mark 15:33) strengthened their faith, it would make sense for Mark to note his boldness in requesting Jesus' body. And the fact that Nicodemus accompanied him, it implies that both of these men were no longer secret disciples, but out in the open disciples. We do not read what happens to them after that, but it is a reasonable guess that they lost their positions on the Sanhedrin.
The point is this: These were not obscure men. Many people would have known who these guys were. If they had children, people would know who their children were. And the people of Judea could have asked them if the things recorded were true. At the very least, some record or some rumor would include these men. Its like you would not become a member of Congress without your name going down in a public record. This is another example of something the first century reader could investigate for himself and find out the truth.
The crucifixion
A crucifixion is not a private event. Jesus' crucifixion, and the events leading up to it, definitely were not a private event. It involved the governor, Pilate, and a crowd shouting "crucify him." It involved scourging, carrying a cross, a man named Simon of Cyrene who had sons named Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21; Rufus was possibly the same Rufus in Romans 16:13, and since its believed that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, that could be why he, alone of all the gospel writers, makes mention of Rufus and Alexander), and an exposed place outside the city named Gogoltha. One thing is for certain, anyone reading these accounts of the crucifixion would expect plenty of witnesses. At the very least there would be rumor of a Jesus that was crucified under Pontius Pilate while Caiaphas was high priest. If it never happened, there would be zero basis even for a rumor and zero chance that anyone would believe such an extraordinary story. If it did happen, but the gospel writers adjusted the details in order to fulfill Psalm 22, then there would be witnesses coming forth to say, "I was there, and that's not how it happened."
Jesus feeds 5000
With the story of Jesus feeding 5000, one conclusion can easily be made: There should be at least 5000 witnesses. Now the gospel writers tell us that it was near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). And we learn that it was right before the Passover (John 6:4), which explains why there were so many people passing through a rather remote area (Jews journeyed to Jerusalem for the Passover Feast). So the reader knows the location and the time of year that it happened. And the reader can expect to hear at least some rumor of this event in and around Bethsaida. Clearly, with at least 5000 witnesses, word of it had to have gotten around.
Lazarus
Pretty much everybody knows, Lazarus was the friend of Jesus that died, and three days later Jesus raised him from the dead. What's interesting to note, Lazarus was a rich man, and he lived in the small town of Bethany. Bethany was only about a mile or so outside of Jerusalem. So really, there could only be one rich man named Lazarus in such a small town (what are the chances that there were two?). And being that it was so close to Jerusalem, people in Jerusalem could go and see Lazarus for themselves. Indeed, that's what was happening (John 12:9-10). If we push it forward to the time that John's gospel was written, then the children and grandchildren of those in Bethany would probably have heard stories told about the time Lazarus rose from the dead (I mean, who wouldn't want to tell that story?).
Malta
Malta is a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. I have always found it fascinating that Luke not only mentions this obscure island in his Acts of the Apostles, but he also includes such details as the depth of the water just offshore (Acts 27:28), the presence of superstitious natives (Acts 28:2-6; I find it amusing that the natives swiftly change their opinion of Paul from being a murderer to being a god), and the chief official of the island, Publius (Acts 28:7). Now one has to wonder, where is Luke getting his information? If this did not actually happen, and Paul is not relaying this story to Luke, how does Luke know all this stuff about an island in the middle of the Mediterranean?
I have maybe something like twenty or twenty-five examples that I could elaborate on, but this note would become very long if I did that. Instead I will just give a brief mention of some examples in the gospels and Acts. Read them over and think about how these stories would be received by first century Judeans.
-Healing the sick at Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36)
-Triumphal entry; it was a public event, and it was fulfillment of prophecy
-Clearing the temple; it was certainly public, and very memorable
-Healing a blind man named Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, just outside of Jericho (Mark 10:46-52)
-Healing the ear of the high priest's servant, Malchus (John 18:10, Luke 22:51)
-The dream that Pilate's wife had (Matthew 27:19)
-Raises a widow's son from the dead in Nain (Luke 7:11-17)
-Raises the daughter of a synagogue ruler named Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:22), and news of it spread (Matthew 9:26)
-Women who were cured of evil spirits, including Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household (Luke 8:2-3)
-Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector in the city of Jericho (Luke 19:2-3)
-3000 were baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41)
-Peter heals people (Acts 3:6-7, 4:16, 9:33-34, 9:40-41)
-Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian Regiment, who lived in Caesarea (Acts 10)
-The incident on Cyprus, involving the procounsul, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:4-12)
-Dionysius, member of the Areopagus, believed Paul and followed him (Acts 17:34)
-Paul makes the claim that over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ, many of whom still living (1Corinthians 15:6)
-And more cities named in the book of Acts than I care to list, all the way from Judea, to Asia Minor, to Greece, to the Italian Peninsula.
Some of these details demonstrate an intimate knowledge possessed by the writer, like the cities that Luke names and sometimes describes in Acts. Some of these details are ripe for scrutiny, and if they weren't true, just begging to be exposed. They are miraculous events involving specific people, not some obscure Joe the Plumber. Sometimes they involve prominent people. They are public events, of which the reader would expect to find witnesses. Oftentimes they include details like the time and place of the events, which invite people to investigate their claim. The bottom line is this: If what the gospel writers wrote was false, it would have been so easy for people living in first century Judea to see right through it. And when you put on top of that the fact that their accounts are hard to believe in the first place (people do not normally walk on water or rise from the dead), the only way anyone would have believed their accounts is if they were actually true. If the accounts were true, then there was witnesses; lots of witnesses. And when lots of people are saying the same thing, you might actually be inclined to believe something extraordinary. Even then it can be difficult (particularly considering the persecution that early Christians experienced).
The overall argument goes like this: We know that many people in Judea, Samaria and Galilee, where the events recorded in the gospels took place, believed what the earliest Christians were preaching. The founders of Christianity, and those who wrote the books of the New Testament, were to a large degree believed. That's why Christianity is such a large religion today. We also have a quote from Tacitus - a secular source - confirming this.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
A couple things we can take from this quotation: 1) Tacitus was not a friend of Christianity, and therefore had no reason to give helpful testimony (that is now used 1900 years later). 2) Christianity had spread all the way to Rome at the time of Nero's reign (54-68 AD), and it was popular. And most relevant to this note, 3) Christianity originated in Judea. Now why does this matter? Because we have manuscript evidence that places practically all of the books of the New Testament, and especially the four gospels and Acts, in the first century. And you would be hard pressed to find a credible scholar to argue otherwise. If we know that the gospel accounts were written in the first century, and we know that many people believed them in the first century - in the region that the events took place - there is great evidence of their veracity.
Why is that? Well, if someone wrote a fictional account about your hometown, saying something like your high school principle was miraculously cured of cancer, and the mayor's son was raised from the dead, there's no way you would believe it unless you talked to the principle or the mayor's son. Even if the story was written 50 years after it allegedly took place, you would know if such a story was false or true. Any story that includes such details as names of prominent people, specific locations, the time of year that things happened, and plenty of miraculous events, if it is fiction trying to be sold as reality, has zero chance of being believed. The gospel accounts do include such details, AND they were believed. We must ask ourselves, how?
Let me illustrate the argument with specific examples:
John the Baptist
John the Baptist is a major figure in the gospel accounts. We learn about his lifestyle ( Matthew 3:4, Mark 1:6). We know the name of his father and mother (Luke 1:57-66). We can read at least some of his teaching (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, John 1:19-27 and John 3:23-36). We can read how he died (Matthew 14:1-12, Mark 6:14-29). And something that would really catch the reader's attention, the gospels claim that he was believed to be a prophet (Luke 20:6). If a person read this, he would expect John to be a well known figure (John the Baptist was mentioned by Josephus the Jewish historian). He would expect people who could confirm or deny the description of John that the gospel writers provide. And as I mentioned, the gospel writers provide a pretty thorough description. So if what they said about John the Baptist - including his testimony concerning Jesus - was false, their credibility would be shot. Disciples of John would come forth and say, "no, that's not how it was." If John the Baptist never existed, the forgery would be that much more obvious, considering the renown of John in the gospel accounts. If what the gospel writers said about John the Baptist was true, even second and third generations would have heard about him. The first century reader would expect this, given the description that the writers provide.
Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea
The gospel writers surely did not shy away from making mention of prominent people in their area. There are two members of the Sanhedrin (the central Jewish court and legislature) in the gospels, and both have a significant role. We read about Nicodemus in the third chapter of John's gospel. He was sneaking away to talk to Jesus, almost certainly because he was afraid of losing his position on the Council. We also read how Joseph of Arimethea, a member of the Sanhedrin, requested Jesus' body and buried it. We read that Nicodemus accompanied him (John19:39), that he was secretly a disciple (John 19:38), and Mark says he went "boldly" to Pilate (Mark 15:43). Now if Joseph and Nicodemus were secretly disciples up until this point, and something like the unusual darkness at the crucifixion (Mark 15:33) strengthened their faith, it would make sense for Mark to note his boldness in requesting Jesus' body. And the fact that Nicodemus accompanied him, it implies that both of these men were no longer secret disciples, but out in the open disciples. We do not read what happens to them after that, but it is a reasonable guess that they lost their positions on the Sanhedrin.
The point is this: These were not obscure men. Many people would have known who these guys were. If they had children, people would know who their children were. And the people of Judea could have asked them if the things recorded were true. At the very least, some record or some rumor would include these men. Its like you would not become a member of Congress without your name going down in a public record. This is another example of something the first century reader could investigate for himself and find out the truth.
The crucifixion
A crucifixion is not a private event. Jesus' crucifixion, and the events leading up to it, definitely were not a private event. It involved the governor, Pilate, and a crowd shouting "crucify him." It involved scourging, carrying a cross, a man named Simon of Cyrene who had sons named Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21; Rufus was possibly the same Rufus in Romans 16:13, and since its believed that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, that could be why he, alone of all the gospel writers, makes mention of Rufus and Alexander), and an exposed place outside the city named Gogoltha. One thing is for certain, anyone reading these accounts of the crucifixion would expect plenty of witnesses. At the very least there would be rumor of a Jesus that was crucified under Pontius Pilate while Caiaphas was high priest. If it never happened, there would be zero basis even for a rumor and zero chance that anyone would believe such an extraordinary story. If it did happen, but the gospel writers adjusted the details in order to fulfill Psalm 22, then there would be witnesses coming forth to say, "I was there, and that's not how it happened."
Jesus feeds 5000
With the story of Jesus feeding 5000, one conclusion can easily be made: There should be at least 5000 witnesses. Now the gospel writers tell us that it was near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10). And we learn that it was right before the Passover (John 6:4), which explains why there were so many people passing through a rather remote area (Jews journeyed to Jerusalem for the Passover Feast). So the reader knows the location and the time of year that it happened. And the reader can expect to hear at least some rumor of this event in and around Bethsaida. Clearly, with at least 5000 witnesses, word of it had to have gotten around.
Lazarus
Pretty much everybody knows, Lazarus was the friend of Jesus that died, and three days later Jesus raised him from the dead. What's interesting to note, Lazarus was a rich man, and he lived in the small town of Bethany. Bethany was only about a mile or so outside of Jerusalem. So really, there could only be one rich man named Lazarus in such a small town (what are the chances that there were two?). And being that it was so close to Jerusalem, people in Jerusalem could go and see Lazarus for themselves. Indeed, that's what was happening (John 12:9-10). If we push it forward to the time that John's gospel was written, then the children and grandchildren of those in Bethany would probably have heard stories told about the time Lazarus rose from the dead (I mean, who wouldn't want to tell that story?).
Malta
Malta is a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea. I have always found it fascinating that Luke not only mentions this obscure island in his Acts of the Apostles, but he also includes such details as the depth of the water just offshore (Acts 27:28), the presence of superstitious natives (Acts 28:2-6; I find it amusing that the natives swiftly change their opinion of Paul from being a murderer to being a god), and the chief official of the island, Publius (Acts 28:7). Now one has to wonder, where is Luke getting his information? If this did not actually happen, and Paul is not relaying this story to Luke, how does Luke know all this stuff about an island in the middle of the Mediterranean?
I have maybe something like twenty or twenty-five examples that I could elaborate on, but this note would become very long if I did that. Instead I will just give a brief mention of some examples in the gospels and Acts. Read them over and think about how these stories would be received by first century Judeans.
-Healing the sick at Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36)
-Triumphal entry; it was a public event, and it was fulfillment of prophecy
-Clearing the temple; it was certainly public, and very memorable
-Healing a blind man named Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, just outside of Jericho (Mark 10:46-52)
-Healing the ear of the high priest's servant, Malchus (John 18:10, Luke 22:51)
-The dream that Pilate's wife had (Matthew 27:19)
-Raises a widow's son from the dead in Nain (Luke 7:11-17)
-Raises the daughter of a synagogue ruler named Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:22), and news of it spread (Matthew 9:26)
-Women who were cured of evil spirits, including Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household (Luke 8:2-3)
-Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector in the city of Jericho (Luke 19:2-3)
-3000 were baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41)
-Peter heals people (Acts 3:6-7, 4:16, 9:33-34, 9:40-41)
-Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian Regiment, who lived in Caesarea (Acts 10)
-The incident on Cyprus, involving the procounsul, Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:4-12)
-Dionysius, member of the Areopagus, believed Paul and followed him (Acts 17:34)
-Paul makes the claim that over 500 people witnessed the risen Christ, many of whom still living (1Corinthians 15:6)
-And more cities named in the book of Acts than I care to list, all the way from Judea, to Asia Minor, to Greece, to the Italian Peninsula.
Some of these details demonstrate an intimate knowledge possessed by the writer, like the cities that Luke names and sometimes describes in Acts. Some of these details are ripe for scrutiny, and if they weren't true, just begging to be exposed. They are miraculous events involving specific people, not some obscure Joe the Plumber. Sometimes they involve prominent people. They are public events, of which the reader would expect to find witnesses. Oftentimes they include details like the time and place of the events, which invite people to investigate their claim. The bottom line is this: If what the gospel writers wrote was false, it would have been so easy for people living in first century Judea to see right through it. And when you put on top of that the fact that their accounts are hard to believe in the first place (people do not normally walk on water or rise from the dead), the only way anyone would have believed their accounts is if they were actually true. If the accounts were true, then there was witnesses; lots of witnesses. And when lots of people are saying the same thing, you might actually be inclined to believe something extraordinary. Even then it can be difficult (particularly considering the persecution that early Christians experienced).
No comments:
Post a Comment