“Prove it!”
Evidence for the truth of the Bible
The Mustard Seed newsletter, Campus Ministry column
December 2007 - April 2008
Pastor Ron Friedrich
The Mustard Seed newsletter, Campus Ministry column
December 2007 - April 2008
Pastor Ron Friedrich
Part 1
"I believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."
Jesus asked his disciples: "Who do people say that I am?"
His disciples responded with a list of titles, all variations of the same theme: "They say that you are a great prophet." So what!? The history of world religions is littered with an uncountable number of "great prophets."
Jesus then asks the critical question: "But who do YOU say that I am?"
Cambridge University professor and avowed agnostic, C. S. Lewis, loved to sit in the pub and debate myth and religion with his friend, J. R. R. Tolkein. Tolkein was a Christian, but Lewis could not accept Jesus' claims to be God and Savior. Eventually the weight of the evidence overpowered Lewis' skepticism. To remain an unbeliever would have been intellectually dishonest. Later Lewis presented the evidence in his book, Mere Christianity. He wrote:
"I believe that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God."
Jesus asked his disciples: "Who do people say that I am?"
His disciples responded with a list of titles, all variations of the same theme: "They say that you are a great prophet." So what!? The history of world religions is littered with an uncountable number of "great prophets."
Jesus then asks the critical question: "But who do YOU say that I am?"
Cambridge University professor and avowed agnostic, C. S. Lewis, loved to sit in the pub and debate myth and religion with his friend, J. R. R. Tolkein. Tolkein was a Christian, but Lewis could not accept Jesus' claims to be God and Savior. Eventually the weight of the evidence overpowered Lewis' skepticism. To remain an unbeliever would have been intellectually dishonest. Later Lewis presented the evidence in his book, Mere Christianity. He wrote:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- one on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.
Either Jesus is God and humanity's eternal Savior, or He isn't. If He isn't, then what do we do with His claim to be our God and Savior? "It's simple," you may say. "Jesus was wrong."
Okay. If Jesus was wrong, did He deliberately lie? ...in which case He does not qualify as a "good moral teacher." To knowingly make such a false claim and deceive millions of people by offering false hope is neither good nor moral. It would, in fact, be evil. But if you carefully study what Jesus taught and all that He stood for, you find nothing that can be accurately characterized as "evil."
On the other hand, did Jesus sincerely believe that He was God in the flesh and Savior for all humanity, but was simply mistaken? Again, He would not qualify for the title "good moral teacher." Rather, He would be a crazy man that needed to be locked up! But if you carefully study what Jesus taught and all that He stood for, you find nothing that shows the instability of a crazy man.
Not a liar? Not crazy? Then we have only one option left: Jesus was and is whom He claimed to be. And each of us are faced with the avoidable decision that Tolkein posed to Lewis: What will you do with Jesus?
Okay. If Jesus was wrong, did He deliberately lie? ...in which case He does not qualify as a "good moral teacher." To knowingly make such a false claim and deceive millions of people by offering false hope is neither good nor moral. It would, in fact, be evil. But if you carefully study what Jesus taught and all that He stood for, you find nothing that can be accurately characterized as "evil."
On the other hand, did Jesus sincerely believe that He was God in the flesh and Savior for all humanity, but was simply mistaken? Again, He would not qualify for the title "good moral teacher." Rather, He would be a crazy man that needed to be locked up! But if you carefully study what Jesus taught and all that He stood for, you find nothing that shows the instability of a crazy man.
Not a liar? Not crazy? Then we have only one option left: Jesus was and is whom He claimed to be. And each of us are faced with the avoidable decision that Tolkein posed to Lewis: What will you do with Jesus?
Part 2
One criticism that atheists and agnostics often throw at Christians is this:
"The Bible has been translated so many times, there is no way to know if it is accurate."
That popular criticism exposes a basic misunderstanding of how the Bible comes to us in the English language. The criticism assumes that we got our English Bible from an earlier translation, and that translation came from a translation from before that, like this:
One criticism that atheists and agnostics often throw at Christians is this:
"The Bible has been translated so many times, there is no way to know if it is accurate."
That popular criticism exposes a basic misunderstanding of how the Bible comes to us in the English language. The criticism assumes that we got our English Bible from an earlier translation, and that translation came from a translation from before that, like this:
Is that how we got the Bible? No! The real picture looks more like this:
The Old Testament texts were originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. When scholars translate the Bible into English, they do not translate from another translation. They translate directly from the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts.
So why do many English versions look so different? Greek and Hebrew are not the same as English, just as ASL is not the same as English. Just as five different ASL interpreters may express the same idea in five different ways that all mean the same thing, so also Bible translators must choose the best way to most clearly communicate the meaning of the ancient text in a language people understand today.
Different translators may choose different ways to express the same idea. While Bible translators do not have the any of the original documents written by Moses, David, or Paul, we do have available to us thousands of ancient carefully handwritten copies (manuscripts) made in the early years after the composition of the original documents.
How reliable are those manuscript copies? We will answer that question in Part 3.
In the mean time, if you want to learn how to study the original Greek text of New Testament, one place to start is here: http://deafjesus.org/courses/greek/overview.htm
So why do many English versions look so different? Greek and Hebrew are not the same as English, just as ASL is not the same as English. Just as five different ASL interpreters may express the same idea in five different ways that all mean the same thing, so also Bible translators must choose the best way to most clearly communicate the meaning of the ancient text in a language people understand today.
Different translators may choose different ways to express the same idea. While Bible translators do not have the any of the original documents written by Moses, David, or Paul, we do have available to us thousands of ancient carefully handwritten copies (manuscripts) made in the early years after the composition of the original documents.
How reliable are those manuscript copies? We will answer that question in Part 3.
In the mean time, if you want to learn how to study the original Greek text of New Testament, one place to start is here: http://deafjesus.org/courses/greek/overview.htm
Part 3
"The scribes who copied the Bible by hand made mistakes."
Gutenberg's printing press and Xerox's photocopy machine are wonderful inventions that have changed the world of communication. Both are a blessing... and a curse. They are a curse, because every day those machines reproduce thousands of typographical errors.
Recently I read a book that appears to have bypassed the proofreader. There was a typographical error in nearly every chapter. When I read the first edition of the same book many years ago, it did not have those typos. Even if I didn't have that first edition copy, it was obvious what the original author wrote in spite of the typesetter's many mistakes. Furthermore, none of the typographical errors changed the meaning, or even the nuance, of the original text.
This is a similar situation we face when we translate the Bible from ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (handwritten copies). We don't have the benefit of possessing Jeremiah's original scrolls, nor do we have the actual original letters which Paul wrote to the churches in Europe and the Middle East. What we do have are thousands of handwritten copies of copies of copies... And we can see some differences among those copies. Are the differences serious enough to cast doubt on the accuracy of the manuscripts? Let's look at three typical examples.
Because we have so many ancient manuscripts of the Bible, the task of determining what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote is not very difficult. Furthermore, if you examine even the most questionable variations among the manuscript copies, you will not find one variant that challenges a single Biblical doctrine.
I have friends who say that they lack confidence in the Bible's authority because they believe that the copies from which the Bible is translated are inaccurate and unreliable. However, they are unable to identify ONE manuscript variant which casts a shadow on the Bible's accuracy. The truth is, those who "doubt" simply don't like what the Bible says, so they grab any excuse they can for a reason to justify unbelief.
"The scribes who copied the Bible by hand made mistakes."
Gutenberg's printing press and Xerox's photocopy machine are wonderful inventions that have changed the world of communication. Both are a blessing... and a curse. They are a curse, because every day those machines reproduce thousands of typographical errors.
Recently I read a book that appears to have bypassed the proofreader. There was a typographical error in nearly every chapter. When I read the first edition of the same book many years ago, it did not have those typos. Even if I didn't have that first edition copy, it was obvious what the original author wrote in spite of the typesetter's many mistakes. Furthermore, none of the typographical errors changed the meaning, or even the nuance, of the original text.
This is a similar situation we face when we translate the Bible from ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (handwritten copies). We don't have the benefit of possessing Jeremiah's original scrolls, nor do we have the actual original letters which Paul wrote to the churches in Europe and the Middle East. What we do have are thousands of handwritten copies of copies of copies... And we can see some differences among those copies. Are the differences serious enough to cast doubt on the accuracy of the manuscripts? Let's look at three typical examples.
- Some copyist changed the word order of a sentence. For example, Matthew 1:18 begins, "The birth of Jesus Christ..." But many ancient copies say, "The birth of Christ Jesus..." And a few less reliable copies say, "The birth of Jesus..." or "The birth of Christ..." So which is correct? A majority of the most reliable manuscripts say "Jesus Christ." But does it really matter? Does changing the Greek word order change the meaning of the sentence? No.
- Some copyist changed the spelling of words. Sometimes this was accidental. Sometimes it was deliberate, as we do in our English translations of the Bible. Americans spell "Savior", but the British spell "Saviour." The Greek copyists did the same, adopting regionally accepted spelling of words, without changing their meaning.
- Some copyists accidentally left words out of a sentence. But any sensible reader can figure out what the missing word is (just as many of our newsletter readers do every month, when they find my many typos). Plus we have the advantage of comparing thousands of ancient manuscripts, which help us fill in an occasional missing word and correct a random misspelling in any particular copy.
Because we have so many ancient manuscripts of the Bible, the task of determining what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote is not very difficult. Furthermore, if you examine even the most questionable variations among the manuscript copies, you will not find one variant that challenges a single Biblical doctrine.
I have friends who say that they lack confidence in the Bible's authority because they believe that the copies from which the Bible is translated are inaccurate and unreliable. However, they are unable to identify ONE manuscript variant which casts a shadow on the Bible's accuracy. The truth is, those who "doubt" simply don't like what the Bible says, so they grab any excuse they can for a reason to justify unbelief.
Part 4
Historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus.
Two events in life of Jesus are major stumbling blocks for many people: His conception and His resurrection.
Since there is no way to verify from either history or science that Jesus was miraculously conceived without any male sperm, skeptics don't waste their time by arguing against the Bible's claim that Jesus' mother was a virgin. An obvious rational explanation is that Mary and Joseph were fooling around.
But the Bible's claim concerning the resurrection, that is a problem for the skeptic. Even though it is biologically impossible for a human body that has been clinically dead for a day and a half to be resuscitated back to life, the historical evidence for the empty tomb is overwhelming. Even Christ's enemies published an admission that the tomb was empty, claiming that His disciples stole the body.
The "stolen body" theory is most doubtful, since hardened Roman soldiers guarded the tomb, while Jesus' disciples were so scared that they hid in fear that they would be killed just like their teacher. Furthermore, if the disciples had stolen the body and then they claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, that would mean they went out to die as martyrs for what they knew to be a lie. The "stolen body" theory does not account for the overwhelming personal eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, nor does it explain how lives were forever changed for those who met the risen Christ.
Modern day critics of Christianity have concocted even more bizarre theories to explain the empty tomb. Some claim that Jesus secretly had an identical twin brother, and it was the brother who died on the cross in his place. Another popular theory is that Jesus' disciples only imagined that he rose from the dead -- over 500 of them had the same hallucination? Of course the serious flaw in both of those theories is that the enemies of Christ could have easily proven that he was still dead by simply opening the tomb.
The historical record documents that the enemies of Christ actually did examine the tomb and verified that it was empty. Explaining how it became empty has been the challenge. ...unless the eyewitnesses were telling the truth. And that would mean Jesus was also telling the truth when He said,
Historical evidences for the resurrection of Jesus.
Two events in life of Jesus are major stumbling blocks for many people: His conception and His resurrection.
Since there is no way to verify from either history or science that Jesus was miraculously conceived without any male sperm, skeptics don't waste their time by arguing against the Bible's claim that Jesus' mother was a virgin. An obvious rational explanation is that Mary and Joseph were fooling around.
But the Bible's claim concerning the resurrection, that is a problem for the skeptic. Even though it is biologically impossible for a human body that has been clinically dead for a day and a half to be resuscitated back to life, the historical evidence for the empty tomb is overwhelming. Even Christ's enemies published an admission that the tomb was empty, claiming that His disciples stole the body.
The "stolen body" theory is most doubtful, since hardened Roman soldiers guarded the tomb, while Jesus' disciples were so scared that they hid in fear that they would be killed just like their teacher. Furthermore, if the disciples had stolen the body and then they claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead, that would mean they went out to die as martyrs for what they knew to be a lie. The "stolen body" theory does not account for the overwhelming personal eye-witness accounts of the resurrection, nor does it explain how lives were forever changed for those who met the risen Christ.
Modern day critics of Christianity have concocted even more bizarre theories to explain the empty tomb. Some claim that Jesus secretly had an identical twin brother, and it was the brother who died on the cross in his place. Another popular theory is that Jesus' disciples only imagined that he rose from the dead -- over 500 of them had the same hallucination? Of course the serious flaw in both of those theories is that the enemies of Christ could have easily proven that he was still dead by simply opening the tomb.
The historical record documents that the enemies of Christ actually did examine the tomb and verified that it was empty. Explaining how it became empty has been the challenge. ...unless the eyewitnesses were telling the truth. And that would mean Jesus was also telling the truth when He said,
"The Son of Man [Christ] did not come to be served. He came to serve others and to give His life as a ransom for many people." (John 14:16 NCV)
It would also validate the other claims the Bible makes about Christ.
Part 5
Testing the reliability and accuracy of ancient documents.
Testing the reliability and accuracy of ancient documents.
Plato -- the Greek philosopher. Homer -- the Greek poet. Julius Caesar -- the Roman emperor. Tacitus -- the Roman historian. |
Every student of ancient European history recognizes these names. When I studied Classical Greek and Latin in college, my fellow students and I had to translate published portions of literature which these people had written. Handwritten manuscript copies of their work, copied and recopied generation after generation, still exist today, preserved in museum vaults.
In all my studies of these ancient authors, I never saw any critique which suggested that any of those documents are corrupted and unreliable. Scholars assume that the works of Plato, Homer, Caesar, and Tacitus which have been handed down to us accurately represent what their original authors wrote. Yet many of these same scholars claim that manuscript copies which form our New Testament of the Bible are corrupted and unreliable. In the face of such criticism, let us make a comparison, applying the same tests to the New Testament as we do other ancient documents.
Since we do not possess the original letters by Paul, or Plato's original manuscript, we must apply two basic tests to judge the accuracy of existing copies of an ancient document. Those two tests are:
How do the existing manuscripts of our ancient authors compare when we measure them with those two basic tests?
Plato wrote his Philosophy about 400 BC. Only seven ancient copies exist today. The time span between Plato and the earliest existing copy is about 1,300 years.
Homer wrote the Iliad about 800 BC. There are 642 ancient copies still in existence. The time span between Homer and the earliest existing copy is about 400 years.
Julius Caesar wrote his account of the Gallic Wars between 100 BC and 44 BC. Ten ancient copies still exist. The earliest of those copies was written 1,000 years after Caesar wrote original manuscript.
Tacitus wrote his Annals around AD 100. Twenty ancient copies exist, the earliest of which dates about 1,000 years after Tacitus.
In this list thus far, Homer gets the high score. He has the highest number of ancient manuscripts in the shortest time span. The others offer very few copies, with time spans of 1,000 years or more. Yet, historians have regarded these documents as accurate.
How do the Bible's New Testament manuscripts compare? There exists today 5,366 ancient copies of portions of the New Testament. The time span between the original composition of the New Testament documents and existing copies is about 50 years for copy fragments, 100 years for whole books of the New Testament, 150 years for nearly complete NTs, and 225 years for complete New Testaments. The New Testament offers an objective standard for reliability which far exceeds every other ancient document of western civilization.
In all my studies of these ancient authors, I never saw any critique which suggested that any of those documents are corrupted and unreliable. Scholars assume that the works of Plato, Homer, Caesar, and Tacitus which have been handed down to us accurately represent what their original authors wrote. Yet many of these same scholars claim that manuscript copies which form our New Testament of the Bible are corrupted and unreliable. In the face of such criticism, let us make a comparison, applying the same tests to the New Testament as we do other ancient documents.
Since we do not possess the original letters by Paul, or Plato's original manuscript, we must apply two basic tests to judge the accuracy of existing copies of an ancient document. Those two tests are:
- How many ancient copies of the document still exist? If the number of existing copies is few, that is bad. If the number of existing copies is many, that is good. If we have many copies of a document, it is a simple task to compare those copies to determine what the original manuscript said.
- How long is the time span between the original composition of the document and the earliest existing copies? A short time span is good. A long gap in time is bad. During a long span of time there is the chance that with each generation the text will become further corrupted.
How do the existing manuscripts of our ancient authors compare when we measure them with those two basic tests?
Plato wrote his Philosophy about 400 BC. Only seven ancient copies exist today. The time span between Plato and the earliest existing copy is about 1,300 years.
Homer wrote the Iliad about 800 BC. There are 642 ancient copies still in existence. The time span between Homer and the earliest existing copy is about 400 years.
Julius Caesar wrote his account of the Gallic Wars between 100 BC and 44 BC. Ten ancient copies still exist. The earliest of those copies was written 1,000 years after Caesar wrote original manuscript.
Tacitus wrote his Annals around AD 100. Twenty ancient copies exist, the earliest of which dates about 1,000 years after Tacitus.
In this list thus far, Homer gets the high score. He has the highest number of ancient manuscripts in the shortest time span. The others offer very few copies, with time spans of 1,000 years or more. Yet, historians have regarded these documents as accurate.
How do the Bible's New Testament manuscripts compare? There exists today 5,366 ancient copies of portions of the New Testament. The time span between the original composition of the New Testament documents and existing copies is about 50 years for copy fragments, 100 years for whole books of the New Testament, 150 years for nearly complete NTs, and 225 years for complete New Testaments. The New Testament offers an objective standard for reliability which far exceeds every other ancient document of western civilization.
New Testament Manuscript Evidence
compared with other classical ancient literature
compared with other classical ancient literature
AUTHOR |
BOOK |
YEAR WRITTEN |
TIME GAP to Earliest Copies |
NUMBER OF COPIES |
Homer |
Iliad |
800 BC |
400 years |
643 |
Heroditus |
History |
480-425 BC |
1,350 years |
8 |
Thucydides |
History |
460-400 BC |
1,300 years |
8 |
Plato |
Philosophy |
400 BC |
1,300 years |
7 |
Julius Caesar |
Gallic Wars |
100-44 BC |
1,000 years |
10 |
Tacitus |
Annals |
AD 100 |
1,000 years |
20 |
Pliny Secundus |
Nature |
AD 61-113 |
750 years |
7 |
New Testament |
AD 50-100 |
50 yrs (fragments) 100 yrs (complete books) 150 yrs (most NT) 225 yrs (complete NT) |
5,366 |
Time gap between original composition and earliest existing manuscripts |
New Testament |
|
|||
Pliny
Secundus |
|
|||
Tacitus |
|
|||
Julius
Caesar |
|
|||
Plato |
|
|||
Thucydides |
|
|||
Heroditus |
|
|||
Homer |
|
|||
Number of existing early manuscript copies | |||||||||
New Testament |
7 Pliny Secundus |
20 Tacitus |
10 Julius Caesar |
7 Plato |
8 Thucydides |
8 Heroditus |
Homer |