After a "free-speech" outdoors lecture I gave at Arizona State University, a professor accompanied by students from his graduate seminar on world literature approached me and said, "Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a second-century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded."

"Sir," I replied, "your opinions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date."

I knew where this professor and his students were coming from. As a university student I had set out to prove that the New Testament was a collection of myths, half-truths, and outright errors. Instead, I ended up with historical evidence for the Bible's reliability that was overwhelming. If other literature of antiquity had the same historical evidence, no one would question its authenticity and reliability.

"So, who cares?" you say. You do. To one degree or another you have developed an opinion on the reliability of the New Testament and its application to your own life. Maybe you haven't thought much about it and just ignore the implications. Maybe you feel skeptical because it was written a long time ago--what possible relevance could it have today? Maybe all those "miracles-and to top it off, the Resurrection--disqualify it in your mind for serious study. Or maybe you want to believe, but it seems so full of contradictions.

Are you willing to talk about it and look at the facts? Good. Me, too.

QUESTION 1: How can the New Testament accurately report the facts about Jesus if it wasn't written until 100 years later?

Many opinions about the records concerning Jesus are based on the conclusions of F. C. Baur, a German critic. Baur assumed that most of the New Testament Scriptures were not written until late in the second century AD. He concluded that these writings came basically from myths or legends that had developed during the lengthy interval between the lifetime of Jesus and the time those accounts were set down in writing.

FACT: Recent archaeological discoveries point to the first-century origin of New Testament manuscripts. (See chapter 1.)

A Scholar's Challenge

As "little more than a theological joke," Dr. John Robinson, lecturer at Trinity

College, Cambridge, decided to investigate the arguments on the late dating of all the New Testament books. The results stunned him. He said the second century arguments were based on scholarly "sloth," the "tyranny of unexamined assumptions," and "almost willful blindness" by previous critics, and concluded that all the New Testament books, including the Gospel of John, had to have been written before A.D. 64. Robinson then challenged his colleagues to try to prove him wrong. If scholars reopen the question, he is convinced, the results will force "the rewriting of many introductions to-and ultimate theologies of-the New Testament."1

FACT. There is strong evidence within the New Testament that it was written at an early date.

The Book of Acts records the missionary activity of the early church and was written as a sequel by the same person who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. The Book of Acts ends with the Apostle Paul being alive in Rome. This leads us to believe that it was written before he died, since the other major events of His life were recorded. There is reason to believe that Paul was put to death in Nero's persecution of Christians in A.D. 64, which means the Book of Acts was composed before then.

The death of Christ took place around A.D. 30. If the Book of Acts was written before A.D. 64, then the Gospel of Luke was written sometime in the intervening thirty years.

The early church generally taught that the first Gospel composed was Matthew, which places it still closer to the time of Christ This evidence leads us to believe that the first three Gospels were composed within thirty years of the time these events occurred, when unfriendly witnesses were still living who could have contradicted the Gospels if they had not been accurate.

QUESTION 2: But aren't the New Testament stories just a bunch of myths and legends that finally got written down?

Some critics argue that information about Christ was passed by word of mouth until it was written down in the form of the Gospels. Even though the period was much shorter than previously believed, they conclude that the Gospel accounts took on the forms of tales and myths.

FACT: The period of oral tradition is not long enough to allow for the development of myths and legends.

Dr. Simon Kistemaker, who has studied the development of myths and legends wrote: "Normally the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time. But . . . we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation."

Professor A. N. Sherwin-White, a prominent historian of Roman/Greek times, points out that for the New Testament accounts to be legend, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be unbelievably accelerated; more generations are needed.

QUESTION 3: How do we know that the Bible we read today is the same as when it was originally written?

In other words, since we don't have the original documents, how do we know the copies we have are reliable? Accusations abound about zealous monks changing the biblical text as it was copied during the Dark Ages.

FACT:. Although we do not possess originals, copies exist from a very early date.

When I first wrote Evidence that Demands a Verdict, I was able to document 14,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. However, with new discoveries, I can document 24,633 manuscripts of just the New Testament. Altogether there are more than 24,000 New Testament manuscripts and portions thereof in Greek and other early versions!

The significance of this number of manuscripts documenting the New Testament is even greater when one realizes that in all of ancient history, the second runner-up in terms of manuscript authority is the Iliad by Homer-and it has only 643 surviving documents.

FACT: The time span between the originals and the earliest copies in possession is extremely short.

The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Though we do not have any originals, there are approximately 5,500

ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS:

From Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 42-43.

Greek copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament in Greek. The earliest fragment dates about AD. 120.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (AD. 350), a complete copy of the New Testament, date within 250 years of the original writing. That may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to most ancient works. 'Me first complete copy of the Odyssey is from 2,200 years after it was written!

HOW DO THEY STACK UP?

*All from one copy. ** Of anyone work.

A few years ago, 36,000 quotations of the Scriptures by the early church fathers could be documented. But more recently, as a result of research done at the British Museum we are now able to document 89,000 quotations from the New Testament in early church writings. If you destroyed all the Bibles and biblical manuscripts, one could reconstruct all but eleven verses of the entire New Testament from quotations found in other materials written within 150 to 200 years after the time of Jesus Christ!

These facts are called the bibliographical test, which determines only that the text we have now is what was originally written.

QUESTION 4: How do we know the writers got their facts straight in the first place? Maybe it was just hearsay.

"Hearsay" is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. The Federal Rules of Evidence declares that a witness must testify concerning what he has firsthand knowledge of, not what has come to him indirectly from other sources.

FACT: The New Testament does not fit the mode of hearsay.

Concerning the value of a person testifying of his own knowledge, Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, an attorney and dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, points out that from a legal perspective, the New Testament documents meet the demand for "primary-source" evidence.

He writes that the New Testament 'record is "fully vindicated by the constant assertions of their authors to be setting forth that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled. "2

FACT: Most testimony in the New Testament comes from first hand knowledge.

For example, when Mary went to the tomb, the angel appeared to her and said, "He is not here, He has risen." When Mary told the disciples, it was hearsay because she hadn't seen Him herself; she just had heard about it. But later, Jesus personally appeared to Mary. That took it out of hearsay and made her testimony a primary source.

Dr. Louis Gottschalk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago, outlines his historical method in an excellent guide used by many for historical investigation. Gottschalk points out that the ability of the writer or the witness to tell the truth is helpful to the historian to determine credibility, "even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness."

This ability to tell the truth, Gottschalk points out, is closely related to the witness's nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded.

What about the New Testament accounts? The New Testament accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus were recorded by men who either had been eyewitnesses themselves or who were recounting the descriptions of eyewitnesses. For instance:

* Luke wrote to Theophilus, "It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order" (Luke 1:1-3).

* Peter wrote, "We were eyewitnesses" (2 Peter 1:16).

* Wrote John, "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you. . ." (1 John 1:3) and "his witness is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth . . "(John 19:35).

* Luke painstakingly listed proven historical facts (Luke 3:1).

This closeness to the recorded accounts is an extremely effective means of certifying the accuracy of what is retained by a witness.

QUESTION 5: But what if the writers simply told false hoods?

Good question. The historian does have to deal with the eyewitness who consciously or unconsciously tells falsehoods, even though he is near the event and is competent to tell the truth.

FACT: The New Testament writers appealed to common knowledge about Jesus.

The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of His contemporaries. Those people could have confirmed or denied the accuracy of the accounts. The writers not only said, "Look, we saw this" or "We heard that" But right in front of their most severe opponents they turned the tables around and said, "You also know about these things-you saw them yourselves." (One had better be careful when he says to the opposition "You know this also," because if he isn't right in the details, he will be exposed immediately!)

Speaking to the Jewish people, Peter said, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him" [notice this] "in your midst, just as you yourselves know . (Acts 2:22). If they hadn't seen those miracles for themselves, Peter never would have gotten out of there alive, let alone have thousands trust in Christ.

F. F. Bruce, a professor at Manchester University, makes an astute observation in his book The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? about the value not only of friendly witnesses (those that agree with you), but also hostile witnesses. "The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts) which would at once be exposed by those who would only have been glad to do so."4

QUESTION 6: So Jesus died on the cross, and later His followers were killed. But "dying for a great cause" doesn't prove the truth of that cause, does it? After all, a lot of people in history have died for great causes.

FACT: What the disciples thought was their "great cause" died on the cross.

When Jesus died that Friday, the disciples no longer had a "great cause." Remember, the Jews at that time were under oppression from the Romans. To hold the allegiance of the people, the Jewish leaders taught that when the Messiah came, He would come as a reigning political Messiah, and He'd throw the Romans out.

That is why it was so hard for the apostles to understand what Jesus was saying. He said, "I have to die. I have to go to Jerusalem. I'm going to be crucified and buried." They couldn't understand it. Why from childhood it had been ingrained into them that when the Messiah came, He would reign politically. They thought they were in on something big. They were going to rule with Him.

Professor E. F. Scott, in his book Kingdom and the Messiah, points out that "for the people at large, their Messiah remained what He had been to Isaiah and his contemporaries, the Son of David, who would bring victory and prosperity to the Jewish nation."5

Dr. Jacob Gardenhus, a Jewish scholar, observed that the Jews awaited the Messiah as the One who would deliver them from Roman oppression. The temple with its sacrificial service was intact because the Romans did not interfere in Jewish religious affairs. The messianic hope was basically for national liberation, for a Redeemer of a country that was being oppressed.

The Jewish Encyclopedia records that the Jews 'yearned for the promised Deliverer of the house of David who would free them from the yoke of the hated foreign usurper, who would put an end to the impious world and rule, and would establish His own reign of peace and justice in its place."

Therefore, at the point of Jesus' crucifixion, the disciples "great cause' was dead from their natural perspective. There would have been nothing for them to die for. Their hopes were dashed.

FACT: It was the Resurrection that totally changed the lives of the disciples.

But then something happened. In a matter of a few days their lives were turned upside down. All but one became a martyr for the cause of the Man who appeared to them after His death. With the Resurrection they finally understood what Jesus had been saying: He had come to suffer and die for the sins of the world, and He would come a second time to reign throughout the world. The Resurrection is the only thing that could have changed those frightened, discouraged disciples into apostles who would dedicate their lives to spreading His message. Once they were convinced of it, they never denied it

QUESTION 7: Isn't the Bible just witnessing to itself ?

Ok, so the "internal evidence is pretty convincing that the New Testament Picture of Christ can be trusted. But isn't that just the Bible being its own witness? Are there any other sources of proof ?

FACT: At least two historians of the time offer external evidence as well.

The historian Eusebius preserves some writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130):

The Elder [Apostle John] used to say this also: "Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them" (emphasis added).

Another historian, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180), preserves the writings of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had been a Christian for eighty-six years and was a disciple of John the apostle:

So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these, each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine.

Polycarp was saying that the four Gospel accounts about what Christ said and did were so accurate (firm) that even the heretics themselves in the first century could not deny their record of events. Instead of attacking the scriptural account which would have proven fruitless, the heretics started with the teachings of Jesus and developed their own heretical interpretations. Since they weren't able to say, "Jesus didn't say that," they instead had to say, "This is what He meant.... (You are on pretty solid ground when you get those who disagree with you to do that!)

FACT: Archaeology, too, often provides powerful external evidence.

Archaeology contributes to biblical criticism, not in the area of inspiration and revelation, but by providing evidence of accuracy about events that are recorded. Archaeologist Joseph Free, in his book, Archaeology and Bible History, says that archaeology has confirmed countless biblical passages that were earlier rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to supposedly "known" facts.7

For instance, Luke at one time was considered incorrect for referring to the Philippian rulers as praetors. According to the "scholars," two duumuirs would have ruled the town. However, Luke was right. Archaeological findings have shown the title of praetor was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony.

Luke's choice of the word proconsul as the title for Gallio also has been proven correct, as evidenced by the Delphi inscription which states: "As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia . . ." (compare Acts 18:12).

Again and again Luke's historical references have been substantiated. Notice that in the first verse of Luke 3 there are fifteen historical references given by Luke that can be checked for accuracy: "Now in the fifteenth year [that's one historical reference] of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [that's two], when Pontius Pilate [three] was governor [four] of Judea [five], and Herod [six] was tetrarch [seven] of Galilee [eight], and his brother Philip [nine] was tetrarch [ten] of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis [eleven and twelve], and Lysanias [thirteen] was tetrarch [fourteen] of Abilene [fifteen] . . ."

It is no wonder that E. M. Blaiklock, professor of classics at Auckland University, concludes that "Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks."

'FACT: One test of a writer is consistency.

Commenting on the overall historical accuracy of Luke, F. F. Bruce (noted earlier) says, "A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available.... Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."9

FACT: The same standard or test should be applied to the Bible as is applied to secular literature.

There was a time in my life when I myself tried to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures. But I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. if a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity.

One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. But we need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious, without incorporating presuppositions or assumptions that rule out certain content, i.e., the supernatural.

Dr. Clark Pinnock, in his book Set Forth Your Case, concluded after extensive research, "there exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias."10

F. F. Bruce makes the following observation:

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.

And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

FACT: The New Testament portrays historical reality.

The late historian Will Durant, trained in the discipline of historical investigation,. who spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes:

Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed-the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some authors to His possible insanity, His despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism, the outlines of the life, character, and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man. 12