1 Chapter 11 The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth Why would the apostles lie?...if they lied, what was their motive, what did they get out of it? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks! -Peter Kreeft We have seen very powerful evidence that the major New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and their contemporaries within 15 to 40 years of the death of Jesus. Add to that confirmation from non-christian sources and archaeology, and we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament is based on historical fact. But how do we know the authors did not exaggerate or embellish what they say they saw? There are at least 10 reasons we can be confident that the New Testament writers did not play fast and loose with the facts. 1. The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves. One of the ways historians can tell whether an author is telling the truth is to test what he says by the principle of embarrassment. This principle assumes that any details embarrassing to the author are probably true. The tendency of most authors is to leave out anything that makes them look bad. The people who wrote down much of the New Testament are characters (or friends of characters) in the story, and often they depict themselves as dim-witted, uncaring, rebuked, and doubting cowards. Examples: They are dim-witted numerous times they fail to understand what Jesus is saying (Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16). They are uncaring they fall asleep on Jesus twice when he asks them to pray (Mark 14:32-41). The New Testament writers later believe Jesus is the God-man, yet they admit they twice fell asleep on him in his hour of greatest need! Moreover, they make no effort to give their friend a proper burial, but record that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin the very court that had sentenced Jesus to die. They are rebuked Peter is called Satan by Jesus (Mark 8:33), and Paul rebukes Peter for being wrong about a theological issue. Paul write, When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11). Now keep in mind that Peter is one of the pillars of the early church, and here s Paul including in Scripture that he was wrong! They are cowards all the disciples but one hide when Jesus goes to the cross. Peter even denies him three times after explicitly promising, I will never disown you (Matt.
2 26:33-35). Meanwhile, as the men are hiding for fear of the Jews, the brave women stand by Jesus and are the first to discover the empty tomb. They are doubters despite being taught several times that Jesus would rise from the dead (John 2:18-22; 3:14-18; Matt. 12:39-41; 17:9, 22-23), the disciples are doubtful when they hear of his resurrection. Some are even doubtful after they see him risen (Matt. 28:17)! If you were a New Testament writer, would you include these embarrassing details if you were making up a story? If the New Testament writers were making up this story, they would have left out their ineptness, their cowardice, the rebuke, the three denials, and their theological problems, and depicted themselves as bold believers who stood by Jesus through it all. 2. The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus The New Testament writers are also honest about Jesus. Not only do they record selfincriminating details about themselves, they also record embarrassing details about their leader Jesus that seems to place him in a bad light. Jesus: -is considered out of his mind by his mother and brothers (his own family), who come to seize him in order to take him home (Mark 3:21,31) -is not believed by his own brothers (John 7:5) -is thought to be a deceiver (John 7:12) -is deserted by many of his followers (John 6:66) -turns off Jews who had believed in him (John 8:30-31) to the point that they want to stone him (v. 59) -is called a drunkard (Matt. 11:19) -is called demon-possessed (Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48) -is called a madman (John 10:20) -has his feet wiped with the hair of a prostitute (an event that had the potential to be perceived as a sexual advance Luke 7:36-39) -is crucified by the Jews and Romans, the fact that anyone who is hung on a tree is under God s curse (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13) This is certainly not a list of events and qualities the NT writers would choose if they were trying to depict Jesus as the perfect, sinless God-man. In addition to embarrassing details, there are several difficult sayings attributed to Jesus that the New
3 Testament writers would not have included if they were making up a story about Jesus being God. For example, according to the New Testament, Jesus: -declares, The Father is greater than I (John 14:28) -seems to predict incorrectly that he s coming back to earth within a generation (Matt. 24:34) -then says about his second coming, that no one knows the time, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son (Matt. 24:36) -seems to deny his deity by asking the rich young ruler, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone (Luke 18:19) -is seen cursing a fig tree for not having figs when it wasn t even the season for figs (Matt. 21:18) -seems unable to do miracles in his hometown, except to heal a few sick people (Mark 6:5) If the NT writers wanted to prove to everyone that Jesus was God, then why did they leave in these difficult sayings that seem to argue against his one claim: I tell you the truth, you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (John 6:53). After this hard saying, John says, From this time man of the disciples turned back and no longer followed him (John 6:66). While there are reasonable explanations for these difficult sayings, it doesn t make sense that the New Testament writers would leave them in if they were trying to pass off a lie as the truth. In fact, it doesn t make sense that they would make up a character anything like Jesus. A weak and dying Messiah a sacrificial lamb is the very antithesis of a manmade hero. 3. The New Testament Writers Left In Demanding Sayings of Jesus - I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:28). - I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for martial unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matt. 5:32). - I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right check, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you (Matt. 5:39-42). - I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven (Matt. 5:44-45).
4 - Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48). - Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt. 6:19-21). - Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matt. 7:1-2). All of these commands are difficult or impossible for human beings to keep and seem to go against the natural best interests of the men who wrote them down. They certainly are contrary to the desires of many today who want a religion of spirituality that has no moral demands. -If thinking about a sin is sinful, then everyone including the New Testament writers is guilty. -To set such stringent standards for divorce and remarriage does not appear to be in the earthly best interests of the men who recorded this saying. -To not resist the insults of an evil person is to resist our basic human instincts; it also sets up an inconvenient standard of behavior for the apostles, who were undergoing persecution when this saying was written down. -To pray for our enemies goes well beyond any ethic ever uttered and commands kindness where enmity is natural. -To not accumulate financial wealth contradicts our deepest desires for temporal security. -To be perfect is an unattainable request for fallible human beings. -To not judge unless our own lives are in order counters our natural tendency to point out faults in others. These commands clearly are not the commands that people would impose on themselves. Who can live up to such standards? Only a perfect person. Perhaps that s exactly the point. 4. The New Testament Writers Carefully Distinguished Jesus Words From Their Own The New Testament writers made it very clear what Jesus said and what he didn t say. It would have been very easy for the New Testament writers to solve first-century theological disputes by putting words into Jesus mouth. After all, if you were making up the Christianity story and trying to pass it off as the truth, wouldn t you simply
5 make up more quotes from Jesus to convince stubborn people to see things your way? Instead of doing this, the New Testament writers seem to stay true to what Jesus said and didn t say. 5. The New Testament Writers Include Events Related to the Resurrection that they would not have Invented The Burial of Jesus The New Testament writers record that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the Jewish ruling council that had sentenced Jesus to die for blasphemy. This is not an event they would have made up. Considering the bitterness some Christians harbored against the Jewish authorities, why would they put a member of the Sanhedrin in such a favorable light? And why would they put Jesus in the tomb of a Jewish authority? For if Joseph didn t really bury Jesus, the story would have been easily exposed as fraudulent by the Jewish enemies of Christianity. But the Jews never denied this story, and no alternative burial story has ever been found. The First Witnesses All four Gospels say women were the first witnesses of the empty tomb and the first to learn of the Resurrection. One of those women was Mary Magdalene, who Luke admits had been demon-possessed (Luke 8:2). This would never be inserted in a made-up story. Not only would a once-demon-possessed person make a questionable witness, but women in general were not considered reliable witnesses in that first-century culture. In fact, a woman s testimony carried no weight in a court of law. So if you were making up a resurrection story in the first century, you would avoid women witnesses and make yourselves the brave men the first ones to discover the empty tomb and the risen Jesus. The Conversion of Priests Why didn t the risen Jesus appear to the Pharisees? is a popular question asked by skeptics. It is often overlooked, but many priests in Jerusalem became believers. Luke writes, The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). These priests eventually initiated a controversy that took place later in the Jerusalem church. During a council meeting between Peter, Paul, James, and other elders, Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). Luke would not have included these details if they were not true, because everyone would have known he was a fraud if there were not significant converts from the ranks of the Pharisees. He made it easy for his enemies to expose him if he had been a fraud. The Explanation of the Jews the Jewish explanation for the empty tomb is recorded in the last chapter of Matthew:
6 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling, them, You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep. If this report gets to the governor we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble. So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day (Matt. 28:11-15). Matthew makes it very clear that his readers already know about this Jewish explanation for the empty tomb because this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. That means Matthew s readers (and certainly the Jews themselves) would know whether or not he was telling the truth. If Matthew were making up the empty story, why would he give his readers such an easy way to expose his lies? The only plausible explanation is that the tomb must really have been empty, and the Jewish enemies of Christianity must really have been circulating that specific explanation for the empty tomb. In fact, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, writing in AD 150 and 200 respectively, claim that the Jewish authorities continued to offer this theft story throughout the second century. 6. The New Testament Writers Include More Than Thirty Historically Confirmed People in Their Writings 7. The New Testament Writers Include Divergent Details Critics are quick to cite the apparently contradictory Gospel accounts as evidence that the Gospels can t be trusted for accurate information. For example, Matthew says there was one angel at the tomb of Jesus while John mentions two. However, this is not a contradiction that hurts the credibility of these accounts. Divergent details actually strengthen the case that these are eyewitness accounts. The angel accounts are not contradictory, because Matthew does not say there was only one angel at the tomb. He only mentions one angel instead of two. Just like two independent eyewitnesses rarely see all the same details and never describe and event in exactly the same words, Matthew and John record the same major event (Jesus rose from the dead), but differ on the details. Judges in a court room would assume collusion between two witnesses if they gave exactly the same word-for-word testimony. In light of the numerous divergent details in the New Testament, it s clear that the New Testament writers didn t get together to smooth out their testimonies. This means they certainly were not trying to pass off a lie as the truth. If they were making up the New Testament story, they would have gotten together to make sure they were consistent in every detail. Such harmonization clearly didn t happen.
7 Ironically, it s not the New Testament that is contradictory, it s the critics. On one hand, the critics claim the Synoptic Gospels are too uniform to be independent sources. On the other hand, they claim they are too divergent to be telling the truth. Actually, they are a perfect blend of both. They are both sufficiently uniform and sufficiently divergent (but not too much so) precisely because they are independent eyewitness accounts of the same events. If you were to look up a recent story on three different Internet news sites, you would find each story would contain the same major facts but probably would include different minor details. In most cases, the accounts would be complementary rather than contradictory. In the same way, all the Gospels agree on the same major fact Jesus rose from the dead. They just have different complementary details. And even if one could find some minor details between the Gospels that are flatly contradictory, that wouldn t prove the Resurrection is fiction. It may present a problem for the doctrine that the Bible is without any minor error, but it wouldn t mean the major event didn t happen. 8. The New Testament Writers Challenge Their Readers To Check Out Verifiable Facts, Even Facts About Miracles We ve already seen some of the claims of accuracy the New Testament writers made to the recipients of their documents. These include Luke s overt assertion of accuracy to Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4); Peter s claim that they did not follow cleverly devised tales but were eyewitnesses to Christ s majesty (2 Peter 1:16); Paul s bold declaration to Festus and King Agrippa about the resurrected Christ (Acts 26); and Paul s restatement of an early creed that identified more than 500 eyewitnesses of the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15). In addition, Paul makes another claim to the Corinthians that he wouldn t have made unless he was telling the truth. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul declares that he previously performed miracles for them. Speaking of his own qualifications as an apostle someone who speaks for God Paul reminds the Corinthians, The things that mark an apostle signs, wonders and miracles were done among you with great perseverance (2 Cor. 12:12). Now why would Paul write this to the Corinthians unless he really had done miracles for them? He would have destroyed his credibility completely by asking them to remember miracles that he never did for them! The only plausible conclusion is that 1) Paul really was an apostle of God, 2) he therefore really had the ability to confirm his apostleship by performing miracles, and 3) he had displayed this ability openly to the Corinthians. 9. New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts
8 Embellished and extravagant details are strong signs that a historical account has legendary elements. There is a legendary account of Christ s resurrection that was written more than 100 years after the Resurrection. It is known as the Gospel of Peter, and it embellishes the story of the Resurrection by claiming their were large crowds who actually witnessed the Resurrection, the stone moving, heads of men stretching to heaven and a walking, talking cross. The New Testament resurrection accounts give matter-of-fact descriptions of the Resurrection. If the Resurrection were a made-up story designed to convince skeptics, then the New Testament writers certainly would have made their accounts longer with more detail. Moreover, they probably would have said that they witnessed Jesus physically rising from the dead. Instead, they get to the tomb after he has risen, and they make no attempt to dress up their discovery with verbose descriptions or cartoonish talking crosses. Matthew, Mark, and Luke don t even say anything about the dramatic theological implications of the Resurrection, and John reports those implications in just one sentence in John 20:31. The theological restraint of the Gospel writers is important. It indicates that the Gospel writers were concerned about getting the history correct, not inventing some new kind of theology. Neither going to heaven when you die, life after death, eternal life, nor even the resurrection of all God s people, is so much as mentioned in the four canonical resurrection stories. This is almost shocking when you think about it. If you go to most evangelical church services today, the constant emphasis is come to Jesus to get saved. That is certainly taught in the whole of the New Testament, but it s hardly mentioned in the Gospels. Because the Gospel writers were writing history, not mere theology. Of course New Testament history has dramatic implications on theology but those implications are drawn out in other New Testament writings. It would have been easy for the Gospel writers to interject the theological implications of every historical event, but they didn t. They were eyewitnesses who were writing history, not fiction writers or proselytizing theologians. Their level-headedness is also on display with the other miracles they record. The thirty-five other miracles attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are described as if from reporters, not wild-eyed preachers. The Gospel writers don t offer flamboyant descriptions or fire and brimstone commentary just the facts. 10. The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long-Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, and Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution or Threat of Death The New Testament writers don t just say that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead they actually back up that testimony with dramatic action. First, virtually
9 overnight they abandon many of their long-held sacred beliefs and practices. Among the 1,500-year-old-plus institutions they give up are the following: -The animal sacrifice system they replace it forever by the one perfect sacrifice of Christ. -The binding supremacy of the Law of Moses they say it s powerless because of the sinless life of Christ. -Strict monotheism they now worship Jesus, the God-man, despite the fact that 1) their most cherished belief has been, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one (Deut. 6:4); and 2) man-worship has always been considered blasphemy and punishable by death. -The Sabbath they no longer observe it even though they ve always believed that breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (Ex. 31:14). -Belief in a conquering Messiah Jesus is the opposite of a conquering Messiah. He s a sacrificial lamb (at least on his first visit!). And it s not just the New Testament writers who do this thousands of Jerusalem Jews, including Pharisee priests, convert to Christianity and join the New Testament writers in abandoning these treasured beliefs and practices. The Jewish people believed that these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death. Not only do these new believers abandon their long-held beliefs and practices, they also adopt some new radical ones. These include: -Sunday, a work day, as the new day of worship. -Baptism as a new sign that one was a partaker of the new covenant. -Communion as an act of remembrance of Christ s sacrifice for their sins. Communion is especially inexplicable unless the Resurrection is true. Why would Jews make up a practice where they symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus? Finally, in addition to abandoning long-held sacred institutions and adopting new ones, the New Testament writers suffered persecution and death when they could have saved themselves by recanting. If they had made up the Resurrection story, they certainly would have said so when they were about to be crucified (Peter), stoned (James), or beheaded (Paul). But no one recanted eleven out of twelve were martyred for their faith (the only survivor was John, who was exiled to the Greek island of Patmos). The apostles surely would have cracked to save themselves. Peter had already denied Jesus three times before the Resurrection in order to save his skin! He surely would have denied him after the Resurrection if the story had turned out to be a hoax. While many
10 people will die for a lie that they think is truth, no sane person will die for what they know is a lie. The New Testament writers and the other apostles knew for sure that Jesus had resurrected, and they demonstrated that knowledge with their own blood. What more could eyewitnesses do to prove that they are telling the truth! What about Muslim Martyrs? There is one critical difference between the New Testament martyrs and those of today. One similarity shared by all martyrs is sincerity. Whether you are talking about Christians, Muslims, kamikaze pilots, or suicidal cult followers, everyone agrees that martyrs sincerely believe in their cause. But the critical difference is that the New Testament Christian martyrs had more than sincerity they had evidence that the Resurrection was true. The New Testament martyrs were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ. They knew the Resurrection was true and not a lie because they verified it with their own senses. They willingly submitted themselves to persecution and death for what they had verified themselves. This is unlike anything from Islam (or any other martyr-producing belief system). While the current martyrs for Islam are certainly sincere about Islam, they don t have miraculous eyewitness proof that Islam is true. In fact, the contemporaries of Muhammad weren t eyewitnesses to anything miraculous either. When Muhammad was challenged to perform miracles to confirm that he was from God, he never took the challenge. Instead, he said he was just a man and implied that the Qur an authenticated him as a prophet. But there are no clearly defined miracles recorded in the Qur an. Miracles were only attributed to Muhammad by Muslims who lived 100-200 years after his death because Christians kept asking them for proof that Muhammad was a prophet. These miracle claims are not based on eyewitness testimony and give every indication of being legendary. The most reliable author of the Hadith, Al Bukhari, and a majority of Muslim scholars admit that most of Muhammad s alleged miracles are not authentic. Since Muhammad himself never claimed to do miracles, and since these miracle stories arise from sources well after contemporaries of Muhammad had died, there is no reason to believe any of the miracles attributed to Muhammad. Another major difference is that the origin of Christianity and the origin of Islam. Christianity began as a peaceful faith and was considered illegal for about the first 280 years of its existence. If you became a Christian in the Roman Empire before about 311, you might be killed for it. By contrast, after a brief but unfruitful attempt to propagate his faith peacefully, Muhammad turned to military force to spread Islam. By 630, he had seized Mecca by
11 force and had control of much of what is not the Saudi Arabia peninsula. Although Muhammad died in 632, his followers continued military campaigns in the name of Islam. By 638 only six years after Muhammad s death the Muslims had seized the Holy Land by force. In the first 100 years of Islam in addition to taking Jerusalem the Muslims twice attempted to take over Constantinople (present-day Istanbul, Turkey), and they successfully swept across northern Africa, across the Straits of Gibralter, and into Europe. The Muslims eventually retreated back over the Straits, but northern Africa remains predominantly Muslim to this day. So here is the contrast: In the early days of Christianity, you might be killed for becoming Christian; in the early days of Islam s growth, you might be killed for not becoming a Muslim! In other word, the spread of these two great monotheistic faiths couldn t have been more different. Islam spread by the use of the sword on others; Christianity spread when others used the sword on it. But what about the Crusades? The Crusades did not begin until nearly 1100, more than 1,000 years after the origin of Christianity. And the initial rationale for the Crusades was to take back the land the Muslims previously had seized by military conquest from the Christians. In the last two chapters we saw that we have an accurate copy of the early and eyewitness testimony found in the New Testament documents. The central question in this chapter involves invention, embellishment, and exaggeration. As we have seen, there are at least ten good reasons to believe that the New Testament writers were honest men who meticulously and faithfully recorded what they saw. Despite the evidence, some skeptics still cling to their only remaining possibility: the New Testament writers were deceived. In our study of the next chapter, we will address this possibility and prove that the writers were not deceived.