Fourth in an ongoing series on the problem of miracles, and evidence for the Resurrection:
As the Christian Scriptures bear powerful testimony to the teachings, miracles, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus, it is no great surprise that challenges to their validity as a testament to those events — especially the Resurrection — are frequent. Here are some of the more common candidates:
1. Why bother with this old collection of myths, the so-called “Scriptures,” when trying to show that miracles existed, and that there was a resurrection of Jesus?
There is evidence even from the pagan literature (which I’ve already covered) that Jesus was a historical figure, and this evidence also provides considerable information about the beliefs of early Christians in the deity of Christ and alludes to their faith in His Resurrection. However, secular references do not provide much detail about those beliefs or the evidence supporting them. This deficiency is not surprising since these pagans had little use for more information about a crucified prophet and his followers beyond understanding why they were such a bother. To obtain these details, we must consult the accounts of actual followers and believers in Jesus.
2. Surely you don’t believe this stuff was “inspired”? You’ll have a tough time selling me that “inspired” writings can be used as historical evidence.
Well, I do believe that these writings were inspired—a discussion for another time, perhaps. However, the “inspiration” of the New Testament documents is irrelevant to their value as historical documents.
3. Historical documents? You must be kidding! This stuff was written hundreds of years after the events it purports to describe.
It sounds like someone hasn’t done their homework. Rudolf Bultmann and other German theologians were responsible for leading a school of biblical scholarship in Germany during the nineteenth century. They maintained a late date of writing of the New Testament, placing it well into the second century or later. Their skepticism had an impact on other biblical scholars as well. But facts have a stubborn way of deflating flawed theories. Using more recent archaeological manuscript evidence, we now know with virtual certainty that John’s last Gospel originated no later than 90 A.D., while the other three Gospels were written considerably earlier. Luke, who wrote his Gospel and the Book of Acts, was a companion of Paul and is widely recognized by scholars as a superb and highly reliable historian. Paul’s letters date back to 20 years after the death of Christ, and he quotes ancient creeds (such as 1 Corinthians 15), which were in circulation at the time of his conversion, a few years at most after the Gospel events.
4. Whatever. How reliable can a few old scraps of parchment be, anyway? Aren’t they all just copies of copies?
They have a high level of reliability. Granted, we do not have original signed copies of the New Testament documents. However, compared to most ancient literature, the New Testament is almost embarrassing in its quantity of source material and the temporal proximity of its events. Homer’s Iliad, the “bible” of the ancient Greeks, was composed in 800 B.C. We have about 650 surviving manuscript copies of this work, the earliest of which dates back to the second and third centuries, one thousand years after it was written. Josephus, who lived in the first century, was the author of nine manuscripts of his History of the Jewish War, which were copied during the ninth through eleventh centuries. Tacitus, the great Roman historian of the early second century? Two manuscripts, the earliest of which was 850 A.D. Despite this paucity of source documents, scholars are entirely comfortable that they accurately reflect the content of the originals.
How about the New Testament? There are over 5,500 Greek manuscripts and fragments, some dating to within one generation of the Apostles. Another 20,000 or so exist in other languages. This is a preposterous wealth of evidence from the standpoint of source material for ancient literature.
5. But they’re still just copies — lots of errors in that process are inevitable, to be sure.
You underestimate the extreme care taken to copying such documents in the ancient world, especially those highly esteemed, such as the Hebrew and New Testament Scriptures. However, some copying errors were inevitable, mostly transpositions and misspellings. The extraordinary number of extant copies allows for excellent cross-checking, facilitating a high degree of precision regarding the content of earlier sources that are no longer available.
6. OK, you’ve got some old documents that were written pretty close to the time of Christ. But there are lots of other Gospels out there that disagree with those in the New Testament — why aren’t they considered good sources?
Good question. Yes, a series of other writings call themselves “Gospels” — the Gospel of Thomas (a favorite of the Jesus Seminar), The Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, and other similar works. Some scholars have made much of these, but they eliminate themselves as contenders through their content, the date of writing, or both. First of all, unlike the New Testament Gospels, there is no evidence that they were authored by one of the Apostles or their companions. Second, with origins in the 3rd and 4th century A.D., most are dated relatively late. And lastly, their content is steeped in mysticism and Gnosticism and borders on the bizarre in many cases. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, ends with a “saying” of Jesus, which goes, “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life. … Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so she too may become a living spirit.”
Gloria Steinem, call your office.
And of most significance, none of them address the centrality of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, the core conviction of the Christian faith.
7. I’m glad you mentioned the Jesus Seminar — these biblical scholars determined that very little of what Jesus said and did in the Gospels is history, that most of it is myth. So much for your “Scholars believe the Gospels to be historical” argument, eh?
Most biblical scholars find the members of the Jesus Seminar to be an embarrassment. They are a fringe postmodernist group with much media savvy but little academic credibility. The Jesus Seminar’s stated goals were to ditch the traditional understanding of Scripture and create a “new fiction,” a “new narrative,” and a “new Gospel.” In this, they have certainly succeeded.
8. Well, we know that the Church decreed which books would be in the Bible and invented its weird doctrines, like the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. It was all a big power-play to keep control over the ignorant masses who mindlessly followed them.
Big fan of The Da Vinci Code, aren’t you? Great writer, Dan Brown — lousy historian, unfortunately. The councils and synods merely affirmed what the Christian church had known to be true from its beginnings and accepted and acknowledged those books that were already held to be genuine and apostolic. The central doctrines supposedly “decreed” de novo by the councils are easily found in the writings of ancient church leaders and apologists — the so-called Church Fathers — several centuries before the Church publicly affirmed them in creeds and Councils. It is child’s play to verify this yourself, as many excellent translations of the Fathers are available — unless you’re not interested in arriving at the correct answer. By the way, almost every verse in the New Testament is cited in these early Christian writings, quoting from manuscripts that are no longer available. The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses or their close associates within a generation of the time of Christ. It was cited by numerous other authors within a few decades of their writing.
9. But even if they’re early and reliable, these Scriptural sources are still religious, written by true believers, fanatics. Couldn’t they just say anything they wanted about Jesus, and expect their followers to buy it?
This sounds easy enough, but there’s a slight problem: many people were itching to prove them liars. There were Jewish religious leaders, first of all, who were not amused by this heretical cult that had formed in their midst, preaching blasphemies. Peter stands up at Pentecost and tells a vast crowd of people, “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through him, as you know … God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” So the Jewish leaders waltz over to the grave of Jesus, show everyone the dead body, and Poof! The new cult crumbles in an instant.
Then there’s the crowd he’s addressing, comprised of many people who heard the preaching of Jesus, had witnessed his crucifixion, or had at least heard about these events from other first-hand witnesses. It takes real chutzpah to stand in front of a large crowd and tell them something they (and you) know never happened. If Peter had tried that stunt, he could have made a lot of omelets with the eggs and tomatoes that were tossed at him.
10. But you’re using circular reasoning — using a description of an event taken from a religious writing to prove that what it describes actually happened. What proof is there that this “sermon” by Peter in fact even happened, or that this is what he said?
This description of Peter’s first sermon was written by Luke, a physician, in the book of Acts. Luke was a careful, detailed, OCD-kind-of-historian. His narrative overflows with extraordinary specifics: detailed descriptions of maritime practices; ancient marketplaces and cultural customs; specific time and place references; and names of secular and religious rulers. His stated intent was to seek out eyewitnesses to the events he described. He accompanied Paul on one of his missionary journeys and traveled with him to Jerusalem, where he had contact with Peter and the other Apostles. His writing depicts much that archeology and other historical sources verify today, and contains nothing of the excesses and hyperbole typical of legendary development.
Yes, Luke had a religious bias, as did all the New Testament writers, because of what he heard and saw from eyewitnesses. If his religious convictions alone condemn his writings as unreliable, methinks the problem is with your preconditions and prejudices rather than with the accuracy of Luke’s narrative.
11. Well, everyone knows that whole empty tomb thing was just a grand hoax — the disciples stole the body, and then claimed a “resurrection” to make themselves religious big-shots.
Well, maybe everyone you know thinks that — but I wouldn’t bet your inheritance on it. However, that discussion will have to wait until my next essay — so stay tuned.
Note: If you are interested in more depth on the reliability and veracity of the New Testament documents, I suggest this book (full text online) by New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce. There are many others, but this is short and easily digestible by one of the best scholars in the field.
