‘The view of all serious historians of antiquity of every kind, from
committed evangelical Christians to hardcore atheists is that the oldest and
best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus are the works of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” – Bart Ehrman[1]
In part
1 of this series we unpacked the question, “what is truth?” along with
sound methods of establishing the rationality of various religious truth
claims. In part
2, we established that the historical/legal method of empirical and
evidential apologetics is the best means of arguing positively in defense of
the Christian faith while at the same time taking into account all the
historical evidence. By now the reader may have noticed that we have given very
little actual evidence. That is intentional. We have been building the case for
Christianity. Now in part 3, we will outline the historical argument which was
also presented by Craig Parton in January at UNWRAPPED in St. Louis, thus
stabbing two birds with one electronic quill.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, Christianity is
unique in its historical claims, its historical context, and in the fact that,
in principle, it is historically verifiable. Moreover, Christianity’s claim to
truth – unlike any other world religion - is falsifiable. This is what St. Paul
says in 1 Corinthians 15: “If Christ is not raised from the dead, then your
faith is in vain.” The question also needs to be flipped around. If Jesus
Christ was raised from the dead, what does that mean? It would mean his claim
to be God is vindicated and what he says is true. But now we’re getting ahead
of ourselves. What evidence do Christians have to back up their truth claim?
How do we go about arguing positively for the defense of the Christian faith?
What does a reasonable defense, ala 1 Peter 3:15, look like?
Here’s the four-part outline.
- The four books known as the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are reliable primary source documents.
- In these primary source documents, the central figure, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, claims to be nothing short of God almighty in human flesh.
- Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead proves his deity.
- Christ gives his stamp of approval to the Old Testament and the New Testament, which he will bring to the apostles’ minds.
Using this outline, we argue inductively, taking into
account all the historical evidence, both internally and externally, and ask
ourselves the question: “what is the best explanation that includes all the
evidence?” As a brief side note, this does not mean that apologetics is trying
to bench the Holy Spirit, nor does it mean we are arguing for a purely rational
faith. To use the early Lutheran dogmatic categories, apologetics can deal only
with 1) notitia and 2) assensus; here we rejoice with Luther
that reason is given and preserved by God and is to be highly praised when used
ministerially. Fiducia, the third
category, is the realm of the Holy Spirit alone; here we join Luther in
confessing, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason believe my Lord Jesus
Christ or come to him but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel…”
It is precisely because there is an objective Word
(proclaiming an objective, extra nos,
outside-of-you salvation) that we are able to know that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself and to martial evidence in support of that
claim while at the same time maintaining that this faith, which is founded on
fact, is also – and entirely – a gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith is not an act
of the will in spite of the facts or a blind leap into an existential abyss:
“I’ll believe no matter what they say.” Rather, faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8-10)
grounded in the objective events of Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15).
This is a good thing. Christianity did not occur in a vacuum. No wonder Luke’s
gospel reads more like a history book than a conspiracy novel (sorry to
disappoint all you closet Don Brown fans).
This brings us full circle to part one of the historical
argument:
The four books known
as the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are reliable primary source
documents.
Although we usually see the Bible printed on fine India
paper with gilt-edged pages, leather bound in one single volume, the Bible is a
collection of sixty six books. The primary source history of the life, death
and resurrection of Jesus is found in these four books, known as the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were written by four separate men who were
contemporaneous with the events they claim to report. In the case of the
Gospels, the four authors are either eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or close
associates of eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke) of Jesus’ public ministry and
subsequent death and resurrection. Think of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John like
four eyewitnesses to an automotive accident on four separate corners. The fact
that they report the same events with remarkable similarities and yet present unique
contributions in their accounts does little to undermine their testimony. Quite
the opposite in fact; this lends support and credibility to their reliability
as eyewitnesses.
The veracity of the paper trail left by these four separate
accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is further bolstered by three
important facts: 1) the overwhelming amount of New Testament manuscript
evidence giving us an accurate and abundant view of what the original autograph
would’ve said, 2) the minimal time gap between the date the events occurred and
when they were written down, in addition to the minimal time gap (especially
when compared to other works of antiquity) between the original date of the
events in question and the earliest known manuscripts, and 3) following up with
the first point, is the fact that the manuscripts we do have have been
accurately transmitted over time and have been painstakingly collected into the
critical edition of Greek texts, such as the 28th edition Nestle
Aland, most commonly used today.
Craig Parton’s observations are helpful here.
“If the
documents containing these claims are suspect and subject to corruption over
time so that we really have little idea what took place originally, then all
bets are off.”[2]
If, however, “the documents are sound and have come down to us in a reliable
fashion, we can move to the next step of considering the facticity of the
claims made in those documents.”[3]
In other words, if Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman and others are
correct that the Bible is simply full of errors and the transmission of New
Testament manuscripts has been thoroughly corrupted over time so as to make the
text utterly unreliable, then there’s little reason to continue on with the
rest of the argument.
(Here I must offer a brief parenthetical note: Bart Ehrman is cited intentionally, not
because he is an ardent supporter of the reliability of the New Testament, nor
because he is an unbiased source of support for Christian apologists, but
rather, for the opposite reasons. In other words, the fact that Ehrman – and
other liberal scholars like him – admit that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are
the best sources for the life of Jesus, actually lends credibility to the claim
of Christian apologists. While it does not prove the case conclusively, it
provides good corroborating evidence from a source that is similar, if not
identical, to a hostile witness. Furthermore, Christians should not avoid reading
Bart Ehrman (or similar authors) simply because they present opposing views,
but rather should be discerning in their reading. Therefore, when reading Bart
Ehrman or other skeptics' works, proceed with caution. If this is your first
introduction to Christian apologetics, consider checking out the following
online resources: Apologetics 315 at www.apologetics315.com;
Stand to Reason at www.str.org;
Issues Etc. archives at www.issuesetc.org;
or New Reformation Press at www.newreformationpress.com.)
Are liberal scholars right in asserting that the Bible is
full of errors and is therefore untrustworthy? Are claims that the New
Testament is a byproduct of some mass ecclesiastical conspiracy accurate when
compared to actual historical records? How do we go about evaluating whether or
not these primary source documents have been handed down to us in a reliable
manner?
One way, effectively used by Craig Parton in his plenary
session at UNWRAPPED, is to apply the same methods of historical investigation
to these documents as we would to any document of antiquity. In this case,
there are three standard tests used in establishing documentary authenticity: 1)
the bibliographic or textual test, 2) the internal evidence test, and 3) the evidence
external test. And just to reassure the skeptic against any alleged biases at
this point, these three tests are drawn from military historian, Chauncey
Sanders, and not from a religious historian.
“The bibliographic
test seeks to determine how reliably the actual, physical document has come
down to us today. With the internal evidence test we seek to discover what the
texts themselves reveal about their reliability. This is, do they even claim
eyewitness status, and even if they answer is yes, do the authors give evidence
of the means, motive and opportunity to present eyewitness evidence? Finally,
the external evidence test focuses on reliable materials and evidence found
outside the texts which either support or contradict the claims in the document
itself.”[4]
In the ensuing posts, we’ll take a more detailed look at
each of these three tests in relation to the primary source documents of Jesus’
life, death and resurrection. In the meantime, here are several sources for
further reading on this particular topic.
- · The Bible on Trial - A Lutheran Hour Men's Network Video Series hosted by Craig Parton.
- · How We Got the Bible - A Lutheran Hour Men's Network Video Series hosted by Paul Maier.
- · Can We Trust the Gospel? - Mark Roberts.
- · The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? - F.F. Bruce.
- · The Text of the New Testament – Bruce Metzger.
- · A General Introduction to the Bible – Norman Geisler and William Nix.
- · History, Law and Christianity - John Warwick Montgomery.
In these primary source documents, the
central figure, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, claims to be nothing short of
God almighty in human flesh.
Typically most conversations with a skeptic spend a great
deal of time on the previous point. No
doubt, they have been fed the constant assumption (without little or no
evidence) that the New Testament has been handed down to us much like a junior
high game of telephone. Sadly there is
just as much confusion on the nature of New Testament textual transmission as there
is concerning the actual content of the texts themselves. Contrary to popular
opinion, Jesus was not some elite Jewish boy scout helping ferry little old
ladies and their groceries across the Sea of Galilee. And neither did he come
to be a good moral teacher or simply to fill the minds of his disciples with
pithy wisdom.
Most catechized Lutherans whom I know are able to
demonstrate this point of the argument quite thoroughly. This is one area where
Lutheran catechesis has excelled. Very few Lutherans who have studied the
catechism, sat in Bible class regularly, listened to faithful sermons and sung
the liturgy weekly, are going to buy into the lie that “Jesus never actually
claimed to be God; only his followers claimed that after he was gone.” For those
who are less fortunate and have not received faithful teaching and preaching, even
a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal the recurring answer to the
question about who Jesus is: “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be
rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the
third day raised” (Luke 9:22). So, if
the text has been reliably handed down – which we have briefly demonstrated
here in the positive – then there are only three logical possibilities about
Jesus (just as the professor described concerning Lucy’s claim of a certain magical
world in a certain mysterious wardrobe).[5] To
paraphrase C.S. Lewis, Jesus is either a madman, a sensational (and convincing)
liar or he’s actually telling the truth, namely, that He is God Almighty come
in human flesh to save the world by his death on the cross. There are no other
options.
Christ’s physical resurrection
from the dead proves his deity.
Christ’s death and resurrection are recorded in stunningly
rich detail in all four of these primary source documents. Holy Week, in particular, is the focal point of all four of these
primary source documents. A larger percentage of time is spent on the accounts
of the events of Jesus’ triumphal entry, trial, death, and resurrection than
any other portion of Jesus’ public ministry. This is no accident. Jesus was
born for this very purpose: to go to Jerusalem to suffer, die and rise from the
grave for the sins of all mankind. Holy Week is the climax of Jesus’ entire
public ministry. Time halts and the narrative pace slows down during Jesus’
last week before his death. This demonstrates exactly how significant these
events were both in the minds of those who recorded them as well as in the life
of Jesus and his salvific work.
These authors spend the majority of their time – in Matthew
29%; in Mark 38%; in Luke 25%; in John 40% (approximately) - dedicated to
narrating the events of one particular week in Jesus three year public
ministry. Why pay so much attention on these eight days if Jesus is only a
moral teacher or a super-duper nice guy? The answer is clear: Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John focus the spotlight on Jesus’ death and resurrection because
this is the central event in all of human history. Their work is replete with details
only eyewitnesses would remember, much less pass along (not to mention,
embarrassing details that wouldn’t be included the story was fabricated), such
as the number of fish caught on a certain day (153 in John 21) or that Jesus
was thirsty on the cross or that Jesus’ words were spoken in Aramaic. As my
good friend and apologist, Mark Pierson says, “These seemingly mundane
historical details smack of eyewitness testimony.” These
writers want anyone who reads their work to know that they saw it themselves,
or they checked out the facts from people who did; this really happened and it
happened for you. The details of these accounts of the Jesus’ life and ministry
confirm their accuracy. And coupled with this richly detailed account is the
fact that no other viable explanation exists for what happened to the missing
body of Jesus and the empty tomb on Easter Sunday. This is a crucial point and
will be handled in more detail in a future post on the defense of the
resurrection.
For now, we’ll move
on to Jesus’ central claim: that his resurrection proves his deity. Claims
to divinity are cheap, especially in California, where I live. But Christ backs
up his claim. John is filled with signs
that point his hearers to Jesus and his saving work on the cross. Similarly, we
are told that the entire Old Testament points to his death and resurrection
(Luke 24). And Jesus routinely predicts his death and resurrection as the
foundational event for his claim to deity. In the Old Testament, false prophets
are stoned to death if their predictions do not come true. If Christ is a false
prophet and false teacher there is no reason for God to raise Jesus from the
dead; Jesus would simply be revealed as a charlatan. However, since God alone
is the author and creator of life, it would follow that if Jesus rose from the
dead he is truly who he claims to be, God almighty in human flesh (John 1).
What’s more, in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus both commands that worship be directed
to God alone (citation) and receives worship after his resurrection from the
dead without rebuking the disciples for committing blasphemy and breaking the
first commandment’s prohibitions (citation).
No matter the worldview, religion or spirituality you claim,
this reality is true for all: one can evade taxes but not death. Death is the
great equalizer. And yet this is precisely the reason why Jesus came in the
first place, to die in our place. Not only does Jesus’ resurrection from the
dead vindicate his claim to deity. It also ensures that his promise to us is true,
namely, that he also holds authority over our death and promises that we too
will rise from the dead (Romans 6).
As Craig Parton notes,
“Jesus says his
resurrection establishes his deity. Of course he could simply be dead wrong
about that interpretation (for example, he could have resurrected but the
correct interpretation of that is that we all resurrect anew each spring, like
wild-flowers). However, if he did accomplish his resurrection from the dead
three days after his crucifixion, the law would easily find that he is the most
qualified witness on the topic of the correct interpretation of that event.
Particularly unsuitable interpreters of the meaning of that event are critics
living centuries later who were not eyewitnesses of the event, whose worldview
does not allow them to even consider evidence for the resurrection, and who
have certainly never accomplished their resurrection.”[6]
Christ gives his
stamp of approval to the Old Testament and the New Testament, which he will
bring to the apostles’ minds.
If, as we have argued,
Christ’s resurrection establishes His deity, then we should be quick to hear
Him as He has pronounced on any topic, including the reliability of the
Scriptures. On this topic, Christ could not have been clearer. As for the Old
Testament, He unambiguously testifies that it is accurate to the smallest jot
and tittle, while He guarantees that the coming New Testament will be guarded
in its transmission by the Holy Spirit through the pens of the eyewitnesses to
His resurrection – namely the apostolic band.[7]
Although Jesus frequently uses stories and passages from the
OT as application to his own life and ministry, Jesus is anything but a higher
critic or liberal Bible scholar. Rather, He treats the OT people, places and
events as historical, not legendary (i.e. Moses and the Exodus, Creation,
Jonah, the flood and Noah, etc.). In a
similar way, Jesus puts his stamp of approval on the New Testament (John 14 and
16). Thus we can confess with Peter that these New Testament books are indeed
products of men carried along by the Holy Spirit and not cleverly devised myths
(2 Peter 1:16-21).
Stay tuned for the next Apologetics 101 post, where we’ll
take up the “bibliographical test” in specific detail as we continue to build a
positive case for defending the Christian faith.
[1]
Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the
Davinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and
Constantine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 102-3.
[2]
Craig Parton, Religion on Trial (Eugene:
Wipf and Stock Publishing, 2008), p. 40.
[3]
Ibid, p. 41
[4]
Ibid, p. 44.
[5]
The full context of this reference can be found in C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in
the chapter titled, Back on This Side of
the Door (page 48 of the Harper Collins, Full-Color Collector’s Edition of
1950), where the Professor says the following to Lucy’s siblings who doubt her
account of Narnia: “’Logic!’ said the Professor
half to himself. ‘Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either
your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it is
obvious that she is not mad. For the
moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she
is telling the truth.’”
[6]
Ibid, p. 73-74.
[7]
Craig Parton, The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer’s
Quest for the Gospel, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2003), p. 92.
No comments:
Post a Comment