More Than a Carpenter (10 page)

What Do You Think?

After reading the six biblical eyewitness accounts above, what words or phrases do they use that make you carefully consider their claims? What emotion seems to reverberate in these accounts?

This close proximity of the writers to the events they recorded gives extremely effective certification to the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Their memories are still vivid. However, the historian must deal with eyewitnesses who, though competent to tell the truth, deliberately or unwittingly give false accounts.

Dr. Norman Geisler, founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary, summarizes the eyewitness testimony:

Both the vast number of the independent eyewitnesses accounts of Jesus . . . as well as the nature and integrity of the witnesses themselves leave beyond reasonable doubt the reliability of the apostolic testimony about Christ.
²⁹

The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of his contemporaries. These people whose lives overlapped his could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, “Look, we saw this” or “We heard that,” but they turned the tables and said right in the face of adverse critics, “You also know about these things. You saw them. You yourselves know about it.” But listen to the challenge in the following passages:

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 in your midst, just as you yourselves know. (A
CTS
2:22
NASB
)

Suddenly, Festus shouted, “Paul, you are insane. Too much study has made you crazy!” But Paul replied, “I am not insane, Most Excellent Festus. What I am saying is the sober truth. And King Agrippa knows about these things. I speak boldy, for I am sure these events are all familiar to him, for they were not done in a corner!” (A
CTS
26:24-26)

One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, “You know this also,” because if there isn’t common knowledge and agreement of the details, the challenge will be shoved right back down his throat.

Concerning this primary-source value of the New Testament records, F. F. Bruce says:

It was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. 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 be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, “We are witnesses of these things,” but also, “As you yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.
³⁰

Lawrence J. McGinley of Saint Peter’s College comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events:

First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged.
³¹

This is why renowned historian David Hackett Fischer, professor of history at Brandeis University, explains that the eyewitness testimony of the apostles is “the best relevant evidence.”
³²

New Testament scholar Robert Grant of the University of Chicago concludes:

At the time they [the synoptic gospels] were written or may be supposed to have been written, there were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely disregarded. . . . This means that the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death, and the resurrection of Jesus.
³³

Historian Will Durant, who was trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes:

Despite the prejudices and theological misconceptions 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 auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, 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 teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.
³⁴

External Evidence Test

The third test of historicity is that of external evidence. The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves. In other words, what sources, apart from the literature under analysis, substantiate the document’s accuracy, reliability, and authenticity?

Louis Gottschalk argues that “conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or more witnesses.”
³⁵

Two friends and disciples of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence that appears in John’s accounts. The first was Papias, bishop of Hierapolos (
AD
130). The historian Eusebius preserves the writings of Papias as follows:

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 afterwards, 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, not to include any false statement among them.”
³⁶

The second friend of John was one of his disciples, Polycarp, who became bishop of Smyrna and had been a Christian for eighty-six years. Polycarp’s student Irenaeus, later bishop of Lyons (
AD
180) wrote of what he learned from Polycarp (John’s disciple):

Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews [i.e., Jews] in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure [i.e., death, which strong tradition places at the time of the Neronian persecution in
AD
64], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast [this is a reference to John 13:25 and 21:20] himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.
³⁷

In
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,
Gary Habermas meticulously documents the extrabiblical evidence for the historical Jesus. Greek, Roman, and Jewish documents offer support for key elements of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. This evidence includes notable examples such as (1) the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans; (2) worship of Jesus as deity; (3) belief in the resurrection of Jesus; (4) Jesus being the brother of James; and (5) the empty tomb. Habermas concludes that “ancient extrabiblical sources do present a surprisingly large amount of detail concerning both the life of Jesus and the nature of early Christianity.”
³⁸

What Do You Think?

Even with archaeological evidence, critics often state that the Scriptures are not historically accurate. Why do you think that’s the case? Is there any evidence that would be irrefutable for you?

Archaeology also provides powerful external evidence. It contributes to biblical criticism, not in the area of inspiration and revelation, but by providing evidence of accuracy concerning the events recorded. Archaeologist Joseph Free writes: “Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.”
³⁹

We have already seen how archaeology caused Sir William Ramsay to change his initial negative convictions about the historicity of Luke and conclude that the book of Acts was accurate in its description of the geography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor.

F. F. Bruce notes that “where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional [external] evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
⁴⁰

A. N. Sherwin-White, a classical historian, writes that “for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.” He continues by saying that “any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”
⁴¹

After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have been forced to conclude that they are historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as unreliable historically, then he or she must discard all the literature of antiquity. No other document has as much evidence to confirm its reliability. One problem I face constantly is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard to test secular literature and another to the Bible. We must apply the same standard, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this myself, I am convinced that the Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus.

Clark H. Pinnock, professor emeritus of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College, states:

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 on an irrational [i.e., antisupernatural] bias.
⁴²

Douglas Groothuis, associate professor of philosophy and head of the philosophy of religion department at Denver Seminary, points out that “the New Testament is better attested by ancient manuscripts than any other piece of ancient literature.”
⁴³

Chapter 7: Who Would Die for a Lie?

Those who challenge Christianity often overlook one area of evidence: the transformation of Jesus’ apostles. The radically changed lives of these men give us solid testimony for the validity of Christ’s claims.

Since the Christian faith is historical, our knowledge of it must rely heavily on testimony, both written and oral. Without such testimony, we have no window to any historical event, Christian or otherwise. In fact, all history is essentially a knowledge of the past based on testimony. If reliance on such testimony seems to give history too shaky a foundation, we must ask, How else can we learn of the past? How can we know that Napoleon lived? None of us was alive in his time period. We didn’t see him or meet him. We must rely on testimony.

Our knowledge of history has one inherent problem: Can we trust that the testimony is reliable? Since our knowledge of Christianity is based on testimony given in the distant past, we must ask whether we can depend on its accuracy. Were the original oral testimonies about Jesus trustworthy? Can we trust them to have conveyed correctly what Jesus said and did? I believe we can.

I can trust the apostles’ testimonies because eleven of those men died martyrs’ deaths because they stood solid for two truths: Christ’s deity and his resurrection. These men were tortured and flogged, and most finally suffered death by some of the cruelest methods then known:
¹

1. Peter, originally called Simon, was crucified.

2. Andrew was crucified.

3. James, son of Zebedee, was killed by the sword.

4. John, son of Zebedee, died a natural death.

5. Philip was crucified.

6. Bartholomew was crucified.