Christian Apologetics Part 4 - How can we know the New Testament is accurate and true?

2Pe 1:20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.   For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

2Ti 3:16,17All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (NIV)

 We have seen in previous posts that God exists and that He interacts with his creation.  The question then becomes, "How does he interact with his creation?"  As Christians, we believe that God spoke to His prophets who wrote down the message they received and we then can read God's message for His people.

Many have posited that the Bible is a book written by men to seek control over other men or to claim divine right to occupy a certain land.  In this post I will attempt to answer a few of the key questions.

1. How can we know the New Testament we have is what was originally written?
2. How can we know that the New Testament is true?

The definitive work on the subject was written by Josh McDowell and is entitled "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" from which the bulk of this information comes - with my comments littered throughout, of course. :-)

This bit can be somewhat dry, but the information is important and significant and demands an answer.

We have none of the original texts, so how can we know the New Testament we have is what was originally written?

C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography.  These are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test.[1]

The Bibliographical test

 How did the documents reach us?  How reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and earliest existing (extant) copies?

There are more than 5,600 full or partial manuscripts in the original Greek and that does not include the 10,000+ copies of the Latin Vulgate and more than 9,000 other translated manuscripts.

The earliest extant copies of the New Testament date to the second century.  Others date the fourth century.[2]

By comparison, Homer’s Iliad is second in number of manuscripts of similar age, and it has 643 surviving copies whose earliest manuscripts date from the thirteenth century. [3]

Josh McDowell quotes Sir Frederic G. Kenon, the director and principal librarian of the British Museum who states that

Besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors. … In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.  The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century – say 250 to 300 years later.  This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts.  We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet’s death.[4]

The point here being that there are simply so many copies which are so close in age to the original documents we can be certain that what we have today is absolutely the text that was originally written.

…“to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[5]

Figure 1 is a table of other works and their historicity as originally printed in The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows some examples of quotations of the original documents by early church fathers (also from The New Evidence…).  According to Harold Greenly “These quotations are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament Manuscripts.[6]

Figure 2

So, we see that there is far more support for the accuracy of the New Testament than any other document of antiquity.

The internal evidence test

 Aristotle’s dictum (according to John Warwick Montgomery): “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.”  Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”[7]

It is important here to note some critical principles for interpreting scriptures.  Just as scientific discoveries are subject to interpretation, so are the words of any document (such as the Constitution of the United States).

Some have said that if it is subject to interpretation then it could be interpreted in any way and thus it becomes useless as a document upon which one can rely.  The problem with this objection is that all documents and even empirical evidence are subject to interpretation.  If one leaves Dallas and enters Fort Worth is he leaving town or entering town?  That is a matter of perspective and one would not be wrong in answering either way.

The art an science of interpreting documents is so common that there is a term for it: hermeneutics.  Biblical Hermeneutics is a sub-category of general hermeneutics and there are some principles one should follow if one wants a sound interpretation.

I would be remiss if I didn't also note that when Bible scholars translate the text from its original language there is necessarily some interpretation involved (not simply translation).  Different languages have words that mean different things in different contexts and there are concepts with words defined for them in one language where there is no corresponding word in another language.  Biblical Hebrew has about 50,000 words.  Conversational American English has anywhere from 300,000 to a  million words depending on who you talk to.  Bible translators must try to find the best words in one language to express what they believe the original author meant in the original language.

As a result, taking any single translation and assuming it is a fully accurate translation and interpretation of the original work is problematic at best.  A proper study should involve reading multiple translations and scholars' interpretations and looking at the possible meaning of any disputed word (like the aforementioned "Yome").

Principles for interpreting scripture (hermeneutics):

1. The Unexplained Is Not Necessarily Unexplainable.  It is a mistake to assume that because it cannot be explained by you and now that it is unexplainable.
2. Fallible Interpretations Do Not Mean Fallible Revelation.  The Bible is infallible in its original language and in its original version.  A misinterpretation is not indicative of fallibility of the original document in its original language.
3. Understand the Context of the Passage.  “A text out of context is a pretext.”  The Bible says “there is no God”, actually what it says is “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Ps. 14:1).
4. Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones.  If a scripture can be interpreted in more than one way it should be interpreted in a way that is harmonious with other scripture on the same topic i.e. "Thou shalt not kill", while an accurate translation is better interpreted "Thou shalt not murder".
5. Don’t base teaching on obscure passages.  The perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture: “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”.  If it is important it will be clearly taught.  When in doubt, refer to #4.
6. The Bible is a Human Book with Human Characteristics.  Biblical authors use expressions of speech (i.e. hyperbole) and should not always be taken literally (1 Co 13:1-3).
7. Just Because a Report is Incomplete Does Not Mean It Is False.  One gospel account refers to one angel at the tomb and another refers to two.  The first is not incongruous with the second unless it states one and only one angel was present (which is not the case.  See the differences of the tomb incident in all four gospels).
8. New Testament Citations of the Old Testament Need Not Always Be Exact.  On many instances the New Testament author will paraphrase the Old Testament author.
9. The Bible Does Not Necessarily Approve of All It Records.  The Bible records lies and deception but that does not mean it approves of those actions.
10. The Bible Uses Non-Technical Everyday Language.  If the Bible states the sun rose on a certain day it is not inaccurate even though we know the sun does not “rise” per se.
11. The Bible May Use Both Round Numbers and Exact Numbers.  If the Bible states an army contained 10,000 men it might have had 9,927.  Rounding is not inaccurate, it is just rounded.
12. Note When the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices.  The context will usually determine whether a statement should be taken literally or figuratively.
13. An Error in a Copy Does Not Equate to an Error in the Original.  Inerrancy only applies to the originals (autographs).
14. General Statements Don’t Necessarily Mean Universal Promises.  Proverbs is a collection of generalized truths and not literal promises.
15. Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.  God shows us in Jonah that he can and will change his mind.  He also has different rules for living in the Old Testament period than in the New Testament period.[8]

Is the writer able to tell the truth (do they know it well enough)?

The information written in the New Testament came from primary sources – from eyewitnesses.  2 Peter 1:16 says “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.”[9]  The closeness of the witness to the time of the event makes the witness more reliable.  Since all New Testament scripture came directly from eyewitnesses it carries the highest possible reliability in this respect.[10]

Is the writer detailed enough to bear scrutiny?

In Luke 3:1 the writer begins the chapter thus: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—

during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert (NIV).  These times and places can and have been corroborated through archeological and other historical evidence.  Compare this with Nostradamus who spoke in such vague generalities that one could apply them to most any world event, [11] or with the Book of Mormon which makes claim after claim after claim about devices which didn’t exist at the time the book was supposedly written[12] to animals in the Americas which didn’t exist until centuries after they were found, [13] to vast cities no evidence of which have ever been found, to the claim that American Indians were the descendants of Jews, which, according to DNA evidence, is patently and unmistakably false.[14]

Some have claimed that the Bible is full of self-contradictions.  A response to this argument is saved for part six (stay tuned).

Importantly, the Bible makes no historical claim which can be discredited by any historical or archeological evidence.

The External Evidence Test

Archeological Evidence

Archeology cannot prove the Bible is true, but it could certainly prove certain parts of it are false.  Archeology can show that a particular historical setting as described in the Bible is accurate or is not.  It can find corroborating documentation or conflicting documentation.  It can prove that a city existed or that a document was written at a certain time, but it cannot prove that what is in the document is true beyond simply being historically accurate.  In every single instance, however, archeology has supported the Biblical account.

Archeology, like many other fields, is an inexact science.  Archeologists many times make educated guesses.  One could find many instances where archeologists believe something but cannot prove it.  Such is the case with many who attempt to disprove the Bible through archeology (there have been cases where archeologists have taken liberties to try to prove the Bible true as well).  In no instance has an archeological find proven a Biblical account to be false.  Conversely, in many instances, it has proven the Biblical account to be accurate when common thought assumed it was not.[15]

Documentary Evidence

Josephus

Flavius Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and was a high priest, a Pharisee, and defender of the Romans – a Jewish traitor who surrendered to the Romans during the Jewish Roman war.

He wrote four historical works one of which was called The Antiquities of the Jews in which he wrote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[16]

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus was born in A.D. 56 and was a senator and historian of the Roman Empire.  In his book The Annals, he wrote of Nero’s attempt to blame the guilt for the burning of Rome on the Christians:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.  Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger was the son of Pliny the Elder ( a famous encyclopedist who died in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D 79).  He was governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey.[17]  Pliny, when dealing with a new sect called the Christians sent a letter to Emperor Trajan asking for advice. There are a number of translations of the original letter which is written in Latin, but the text is undisputed and the original documents are available for comparison.

Gaius Plinius to the Emperor Trajan

It is for me an important point of responsibility to refer to you as Head of State, things about which I have questions, since you are the person best able to set straight my hesitations and correct my lack of information.

Actually I have never been present at a Examination (cognitio) of Christians, so I do not know what punishment is required or how far it is to be carried out. Nor do I understand the legal grounds for a prosecution, or how stringently it is to be prosecuted. I am not clear about prosecutions in respect to the age of the persons, whether no distinction should be made between the young and the old, and furthermore whether a pardon should be granted in cases of recanting, or if there is no advantage for a person completely ceasing to be a Christian. Or is it the name "Christian" which is prosecutable, even if not involved in criminal actions, or is it that "criminality" is automatically attached to the name?

In the meantime, I now handle it this way with those who are turned over to me as Christians. I ask them directly, in person, if they are Christian, I ask a second and third time to be sure, and indicate to them the danger of their situation. If they persist, I order them to be dispatched (= executed). I have had no trouble with this, since whatever it was they admitted or professed, I decided that their obstinacy and unyielding inflexibility should be sufficient reason for punishment. Some others who were virtually insane with this cult, but Roman citizens, I sent back to Rome for trial.

As I continue with this handling of the situation, as often happens, the numbers and kinds of incriminations are becoming more widespread. An anonymous List has been brought out which contains the names of a great many persons. I decided to dismiss charges against any on this list who stated that they were now not, nor had ever been Christians, if they repeated after me a prayer of invocation to the Gods, and made an offering of wine and incense to your statue, which I had brought in to the court along with the statues of the Gods, for this purpose. And in addition they were to formally curse Christ, which I understand true Christians will never do.

Other named by the anonymous List said they were Christians, and later changed their statement. Some said that they had been and then stopped, some three years before, some longer, some even twenty years before. All these reverenced your statue and those of the Gods, and cursed Christ. They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to God, swearing with a holy oath not to commit any crime, never to steal or commit robbery, commit adultery, fail a sworn agreement or refuse to return a sum left in trust. When all this was finished, it was their custom to go their separate ways, and later re-assemble to take food of an ordinary and simple kind. But after my edict which forbids all political Societies, they did in fact give this up.  I thought at this point that it was necessary to get information from two slave women, whom they call Deaconesses (ministrae) about the actual truth, by means of torture. I found nothing worthy of blame other than the blind and over-wrought nature of their cult-superstition.

I have therefore postponed further examinations (cognitiones) and made haste to come to you immediately for consultation. This situation seem to demand serious consultation, especially in view of the large number of people falling into this danger. A great many persons of every age, of every social class, men and women alike, are being brought in to trial, and this seems likely to continue. It is not only the cities, but also the towns and even the country villages which are being infected with this cult-contagion.

It seems possible to check and reverse this direction at this point, for it is quite clear that the Temples of the Gods which have been empty for so long, now begin to be filled again, the sacred rites which had lapsed are now being performed and flesh for sacrificial rites is now sold again at the shops, although for a while nobody would buy it. So it seems reasonable to think that a great many people could be persuaded to reform, if there were a legal procedure for repentance.

Emperor Trajan to Pliny:

You have done the right thing, my dear Pliny, in handling the cases of those who were brought to you under the charge of being Christians. But it is not possible to make hard and fast rules with one specific formula. These people must not be searched out, if they are brought before your court and the case against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone who states that he is not a Christian and makes it perfectly clear that he is not, by offering prayers to our Gods, such a one is to be pardoned on the grounds of his present repentance, however suspect he may have been in the past. But anonymous lists must not have any place in the court proceedings. They are a terrible example and not at all in keeping with our times.[18]

So even without the text of the New Testament, just from the works of other non-Christian authors:

“We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside – men and women, slave and free – worshiped Him as God.”[19]

All of these documents support the accuracy of the New Testament text from non-Christian sources. 

How can we know that the New Testament is true?

The question is not whether or not the text of the New Testament can be proven to be true.  It may not be possible to prove that any text is 100% true.  Rather, the question is, is there enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the text is true.  To answer this question we look to the device of reason.

Reason 1: If a book were fabricated to make one look like a God, it would include only a positive portrayal of the God-man and his followers.  In the Bible, Jesus is described as not able to work miracles in Galilee because of that town’s lack of faith.[20] Peter denies knowing Jesus and even called down curses on himself.[21]  We are shown again and again the flaws of the people who are the foundations of Christianity.  This straightforwardness of telling the whole truth and not just the “good parts” points toward the truthfulness of the text.

Reason 2: Who would die for a lie?[22]  It is shown not only in the New Testament, but also in other corroborating, non-Christian documents that all of the Apostles except John were martyred for their faith and John spent the last years of his life exiled to the Isle of Patmos.  These are the men who wrote the New Testament and were eyewitnesses to the Christ.  Would they all be willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie?  A reasonable assumption is that they would not – especially after scattering after his arrest and claiming not to know him.

Reason 3: The New Testament claims to be true and factual unlike other historically accurate works which are fictional stories based on historically accurate places and times (i.e. Homer’s The Illiad).  If these books claim to be factual and no aspect of them can be proven to be false then, as per Aristotle’s Dictum, they should be considered to be true.

So, whereas we have no absolute proof that the text of the New Testament is true, we also have no evidence whatsoever to show that it isn't.  If our goal is to remove the obstacles to faith from a seeker's path then the work has been accomplished.  There is absolutely no evidence that the text of the New Testament is inaccurate or false and much evidence that it is accurate and true.

What about the Old Testament, though?  Is there similar evidence supporting its accuracy and truthfulness?  That is the subject I will take up in the next blog posting.

---

[1] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  P 33.

[2] IBID, pp 35-36.

[3] IBID, p 34.

[4] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  P 35.

[5] IBID

[6] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.  p43.

[7] The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, p45.

[8] Entire list taken from The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pp 46-51.

[9] See also: Luke 1:1-3, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John 19:35, Luke 3:1 and Acts 26:24-26.

[10] It does not, however, prove that those writing the work were not willfully attempting to mislead or misrepresent the facts.

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus: “most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus's quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance”

[12] 1 Nephi 4:9 describes a blade of “the most precious steel”.  Steel had not yet been invented at the time.

[13] 1 Nephi 18:25 describe a boat landing on the American continent 6 centuries before the time of Christ where they found “beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals”.  Neither horses, nor cows nor goats came to the Americas until the 14^th century AD.

[14] DNA evidence has shown unequivocally that American Indians are of Mongol and not Jewish descent and furthermore, archeological evidence proves the migration of those early Americans across the bering straits of Alaska by land and not from Israel by boat as is claimed in 1 Nephi.

[15] See The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, pages 97-107 for specific accounts.

[16] The Antiquities of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, public domain.  Book XVIII (Edition 11), Chapter 3 Paragraph 3.

[17] The Case For Christ, Strobel, Zondervan, p83.

[18] Pliny and the Christians, Letter to the Emporer Trajan. Written in A.D. 111 and preserved intact.

[19] Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D, as quoted in The Case For Christ, Strobel, Zondervan. P87.

[20] Mark 6:4-6

[21] Mark 14:71

[22] More Than A Carpenter, McDowell, Chapter 5.