Early life

I grew up without any religious education, and was agnostic. I never went to church growing up, and only knew as much about Christianity as I was able to pick up from culture and the media … ie, not much! When I was younger, I had some sort of vague belief in God, but I knew nothing of Christianity or any other faiths. As I got older,I started to adopt an atheistic attitude, mostly because my friends at the time were atheists, not due to any particular reason or life circumstance.

Something missing?

Halfway through earning my degree in Information Systems at university, I started to feel that something was missing in my life. By all accounts I had things pretty good. I generally didn’t have to worry about money, I was doing well in school, and had a loving family. Yet, I felt depressed. I decided to make a list of things I wanted to try, in order to find out what that “missing part” of my life was. One of the items on the list was to investigate religion (and God) for the first time. I figured it was worth a shot and wouldn’t cost me anything. It’d be at least a good learning opportunity.

So I decided to investigate various religions to see whether any of them were credible. I can’t recall all of the faiths that I looked at, but I definitely spent some time with Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism and Christianity. I wanted a faith that was true: Something that made me feel good but was not grounded in reality was not worth considering.

First steps

As far as I can recall, the first religion I looked at was Buddhism. I had a positive impression of Buddhism, probably from the positive way Buddhism is usually portrayed in the media. I never heard Buddhism being criticized. It seemed to be the most “socially acceptable” religion. (Social acceptance is hardly the best test for truth! But such was my thinking at the time.)

Buddhism is atheistic; at least, the question of God’s existence is said to be peripheral to Buddhist faith. Some Buddhists believe God exists, but many don’t. To me, any religion that is atheistic is not a religion at all, it is merely a philosophy, invented by humankind and therefore no better or worse than any other philosophy (at least in terms of potential for error). If a religion differs within itself so widely on the most central topic of faith (whether or not God exists) it’s difficult to even call it one faith at all. How could Buddha have been so misunderstood that his followers could not agree on the most basic question of whether God exists or not, and whether that matters? (I would say yes God does exist, and yes it does matter … but we haven’t quite come to that point yet!)

I read about the various leaders of religions; for example, Muhammad of Islam, Joseph Smith of Mormonism and Jesus of Christianity. I was somewhat surprised by what I discovered. All claimed to have the right answer, the “only way”, but Jesus was the only one who claimed to BE the only way: he claimed to BE God! Why follow mere men, who would be filled with error, instead of God himself, in whom there would be no error? The gospel story really spoke to me in a way that the stories of Islam and Mormonism (and others) didn’t. If any of these stories were true, I wanted Christianity to be true, but the question was whether it really was true or not, so I figured I’d spend more time investigating it. The person of Jesus Christ struck me as being authentic, in a way that the others didn’t. And I knew that it was quite impossible for ALL of these faiths to be true. (Clearly I’m not a “postmodernist”.) If I accepted Jesus, I could not accept the rest.

What’s this “Christianity”?

I needed to carefully investigate the Christian faith before accepting it. I had some Christian friends at the time, but I didn’t tell any of them that I was reading about Christianity because if I decided that Christianity wasn’t true, I didn’t want to have to tell them that their religion is a fairytale!

I was still wary of the church, so I bought myself a copy of the Bible (from Amazon.com … hey, it’s a book, that’s where you buy books right?) and started to read it for myself. Not knowing much about the Bible, I started reading at the beginning like any other book I’d read. I wondered when Jesus came into the story, and after flipping around a bit I figured out the difference between the Old and New Testaments. (Roughly speaking the Old Testament is before Jesus, the New Testament is about Jesus and the early church.)

That’s nice, but is it true?

I continued reading over the next few weeks, and although pretty skeptical about the miracle stories, I was still interested enough to continue. (I also knew that if God exists, miracles are at least possible; though I had never had much confidence in them being actual before.) Over the course of three months I read most of the New Testament and a large portion of the Old Testament. During that time I started to question the historical reliability of the Bible. If this book were true (that is, historically accurate) it certainly would be the “greatest story ever told”. But if it weren’t, it’d be no better than J.R.R Tolkien or Douglas Adams: fine fiction, but in no sense “holy”, nor “history”.

I finally admitted to a close Christian friend that I had been reading the Bible, and had questions about its reliability. She gave me a book called The Case for Christ by Yale law school graduate and former Chicago Times legal editor Lee Strobel, which examines hard questions about the reliability of the Bible. I learned to my surprise that yes, there are good reasons for believing that the Bible is reliable in what it records! My later reading has only confirmed this. The New Testament is the most scrutinized literature in the history of the world, and its reliability is unparalleled compared to all other documents from its time! See my essay The Historical Reliability of the New Testament for more on this topic.

Now I really began to struggle! In a way I wanted this amazing message to be true. But in another way, I really didn’t. As unhappy as I was with my life, becoming a follower of Jesus would mean I’d have to make some changes and give up some of the sin that, frankly, I enjoyed. After about four months of daily reading and study I had come to something like an intellectual acceptance, but not an acceptance in my heart. It’s one thing to make a mental assent and say “Yes, I believe that this is likely to be true”, but it’s quite another to make the more real life altering decision to change my life course and admit that for the first 20 years of my life that I had been wrong!

Expression of a deep inner need

In early January of 2003 I decided that I’d attend an on-campus “church” service. I figured this would be like going to church but not quite as weird, and I should at least see what church is like. The service wasn’t as weird as I thought it would be, although there was a lot of singing which I didn’t enjoy at the time. (I wasn’t quite sure that I agreed with what they were singing about!) But when the speaker gave his short message something that he said resonated with me. He talked about having a “wow moment” with God, an experience where God speaks to you personally. I realized that was what was stopping me from accepting Christ.

I had already rationally accepted Christian belief, but even then I knew that there was more to faith than simple intellectual ascent. I had never had a personal experience of God. So that same night, I prayed for God to personally come to me in some way. I didn’t know what, if anything, to expect.

January 14 2003, 3am

The next night I was up late and I picked up my Bible to read a bit. My Bible included some extra commentary and stories, and the story that I read involved a lonely farmer:

One raw winter night a farmer heard an irregular thumping sound against his kitchen storm door. He went to a window and watched as tiny, shivering sparrows, attracted to the evident warmth inside, beat in vain against the glass.

Touched, the farmer bundled up and trudged through fresh snow to open the barn door for the struggling birds. He turned on the lights and tossed some hay in the corner. But the sparrows, which had scattered in all directions when he emerged from the house, hid in the darkness, afraid.

The man tried various tactics to get them into the barn. He laid down a trail of Saltine cracker crumbs to direct them. He tried circling behind the birds to drive them to the barn. Nothing worked. He, a huge, alien creature, had terrified them; the birds couldn’t comprehend that he actually desired to help. The farmer withdrew to his house and watched the doomed sparrows through a window. As he stared, a thought hit him like lightning from a clear blue sky: If only I could become a bird – one of them – just for a moment. Then I wouldn’t frighten them so. I could show them the way to warmth and safety.

At the same moment, another thought dawned on him. He grasped the reason Jesus was born.

(As told by Paul Harvey)

When I read this story this time, it was different than when I read it before. I felt emotion welling up inside of me, and by the time I’d read the last sentence, I was crying. Not tears of pain, but tears of profound joy.

I’m not someone who cries easily! But here I was, alone in my room at 3am, crying! I didn’t know what was going on, until I remembered my prayer from the previous night. “This is crazy!” I thought. “Is God really speaking to me this way?” But I kept on crying and couldn’t stop. It must’ve gone on for 20 minutes. During that time, I finally relented, and made a decision that would change my life. I said “Yes” to God.

I prayed, though I didn’t really know what to pray for. As best as I can remember, I prayed for forgiveness for my many sins, thanked God for coming near, and asked Him to never leave. And He still hasn’t to this day, despite all my missteps and failings along the way.

When I woke up the next day, I stared out my window for a long time, and wondered what would happen in my life. I have sometimes struggled with questions about my faith since then, but I haven’t doubted that something powerful has happened. Not everyone will have an experience like this, and my decision wasn’t based only on this emotional experience. This event just helped make my faith sufficient to overcome my fear.

I follow God: I follow Jesus

Upon further reflection, God chose to speak to me in exactly the way that I needed, at the perfect time. God may not always work on our timetable, but His timing is always perfect. And His promises to us always come true. One of those promises is that if you seek Him, you will find Him (Matthew 7:7-8). It is today my humble prayer that you will know God via His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and thereby know the intense and life-changing love that God has waiting for you. My road to faith, and since, has not always been easy. But I have never been sorry that I asked God to come near, and He did. In fact, God came nearer than anyone ever expected. He came to us in person, in Jesus.

Curious about Jesus? Please check out True or False? Doubters welcome to learn more, or perhaps the Jesus? I want to know more page on this site.

Please, if you have any comments, questions, or anything you want to talk to me about, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thanks for reading all the way to the end!

PDF or Amazon Kindle or Online (Scribd)

Note: The format of the Amazon version isn’t perfect yet, I’m still tweaking it, but once you get past the cover and table of contents you’ll be fine.

As featured on: Apologetics Index , ThinkingChristian , Apologetics 315 , Pray Connecticut , TruthBomb Apologetics , and Atheism is Dead

Is the New Testament a reliable historical document, or just a bunch of myths? Philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli claim that loss of confidence in the reliability of the Bible is “by far the most widespread intellectual reason why Christians have lost their faith in the twentieth century.” This is tragic, because there are good answers to the challenges made against the New Testament and good positive evidence for its reliability! Although this ebook is not a comprehensive treatment on the subject (nor is it meant to be) it provides a summary and outline of reasons why we can be confident in trusting the biblical text and many of the cited resources are excellent reading for those who would like delve deeper into this topic.

Now in its “second edition” with a new chapter, epilogue, and many updates and additions!

Download/view: (Last updated: August 20, 2010 (minor edits))

• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – PDF format, approx 20,000 words, 1,467KB (Download Adobe Reader free)
• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – Amazon Kindle format, approx 20,000 words, 587KB (Download Kindle Reader free)
• NEW! Now you can also view the ebook online in your web browser using Scribd.com!

Feel free to copy and redistribute this PDF file! (See the Creative Commons License above for more details.)

For Google: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament in directory listing

One of the threads on the FORU.MS discussion board was deleted recently, and one of my old posts went along with it. (Not sure why the thread was removed.) A mod was kind enough to forward my post in the thread to me before it was removed, so here’s my reply below to someone who posted some comments on science and faith, which I have edited & expanded a bit for this blog: (original poster’s comments in italics; assume all spelling errors in his/her writing were in their original post)

Christians don’t trust in Science because it clean’s their clock. I mean Noah’s ark? Camon.

There are several different theories regarding Noah’s Ark. Many believe it was a local flood; ie, it covered the entire world that was known to people at that time. Others claim that it was indeed a worldwide flood, which is buttressed to some extent by the other flood stories that appear in other ancient documents. Still others take it metaphorically. Personally I think that may be stretching the account to interpret it that way. But, we can’t really know for sure which is more likely the correct approach.

The bible is full of contradictions, I could name thousands. Do a google search.

Let’s keep in mind what a contradiction is: “a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.” What are usually cited as contradictions are actually purported errors, but nevertheless, if Google searches are your fancy, do a Google search on answers to the supposed contradictions and you’ll find solid answers for most of them (for example, one of J P Holding’s lists, or this refutation of a Muslim “101″ list). There have been times when certain alleged errors or contradictions have been cleared up by further research or archaeological finds, so for the few questions that are as yet unknown, it doesn’t really bother me that we may not understand every word of the Bible completely. There are of course good reasons to believe the New Testament is trustworthy and reliable.

Science and Christianity to not play nice together. Christians sometimes get angry and kill the bringers of science: “Galeao and his godless telescope for example”

This is unfortunately true. It’s sad when Christians abandon the teachings of Jesus and immorally commit acts that deny His teachings. But this is not proof that Christianity is false. Thousands of Christians are martyred every year by secular governments; that does not prove that atheism is wrong any more than the bad things done by some Christians prove that Christianity is wrong. For more on this topic, see Skeptical Christian’s “Evil Christianity” or my own (brief) post Christians do bad things. That said, as per Philip J. Sampson the story of Galileo has become a ‘modern myth’ and the real story is not quite so condemning once we acknowledge all the relevant details.

Science provides solid proof that Christians are ridiculous therefore Christians cannot allow science to invade their sacred space of Faith.

I’m sorry that you feel that way, but please keep in mind that many of the great scientists throughout history have been “religious”, and a large number today believe that God exists. A recent study of college professors demonstrated that the majority believe God exists (source). For example, Dr Alister McGrath, who holds two PhDs from Oxford, one in molecular biophysics and the other in theology, is a proponent of what he refers to as scientific theology.

Is there a fundamental conflict between science and religion? I don’t think so. Is there a fundamental conflict between science of the naturalism or scientism sort and religion? Naturally!

The question to ponder is: How can Christians claim that all human beings are “sinners”? Isn’t that just being unnecessary pessimistic? Aren’t people essentially good?

Yes, people are, in a sense, “essentially good”. But Christians use those words in a slightly different way. To say a person is essentially good means that since people are made in God’s image (that is, resemblance, likeness) we never are able to fully erase that essential quality, regardless of how much we may deface it.¹ Essential goodness in this sense means that we cannot entirely remove or escape our divine worth; since God has given us this worth, it is not within our power to expunge it.

However, a more widespread expression of “essentially good” has a different meaning. What does it mean to be good, in this context? That is, what is the most important thing? It seems that in this popular worldview, the most important thing is that you should be nice to people. In our society (and most churches, for that matter) this is the most important thing. I mean, of course it is … right? What else could be more important … ?

As it happens, Jesus was once asked this very same question by the religious leaders of His time: What is the most important thing?

… but before we consider Jesus’ answer, consider this short parable:

A man was walking by a river, when suddenly he heard a splash, and saw a woman flailing her arms in the water. The man recognized that she could not swim. He knew that she would surely drown in the fast moving water. Throwing off his coat, he dove in the river, grabbed her arm, and dragged her to safety.

For saving her life, the man was lauded as a hero, and the tale of his act of valor began to spread. Observers called for the man to be awarded a medal of honor, and a reporter even interviewed the man for the local paper.

However, the next day’s newspaper told the rest of the story. When asked why he saved the woman, the man answered “I don’t care about the woman herself. I only saved her because she owed me a hundred dollars. I’m an expert swimmer, and I knew that if she drowned she would never be able to repay my money. Frankly I couldn’t care less if she drowned.” The townspeople were aghast, and no one ever spoke again of awarding him a medal of honor.

Now, why do we react differently to the story after hearing the man’s intentions? The act itself does not change, and although the act is not entirely negated, it seems in a sense tainted by the man’s motivations. The man could no longer be considered a hero. It seems as though if a person does a right act for a wrong reason, we are innately (and rightly) repulsed by it. Motivation matters. For example, a person who commits manslaughter receives a lesser sentence than one who commits first degree murder; what differs is their motivation. So we can agree that motivation for an act can change the worthiness (or unworthiness) of the act. Let’s keep this fact in mind.

Back to Jesus. When Jesus was asked what was most important, He answered by twice quoting the Old Testament:

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22:37-39)

Notice what is first: Loving God. This is what Jesus said is the most important thing. Loving God = #1. Loving your neighbors (by which Jesus means all people, even your enemies) is #2. Still important, you understand, but secondary. And according to Jesus, our #2 flows from our #1: our acts made in love for God will likewise be manifest in love for others, but the reverse is not necessarily true. John explains further: “This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:2-3)

If Jesus is right (this is how Jesus argued, not me) how can we be “good” if our motivation for acting ignores what Jesus claimed is most important? How can a person be “good” if their motivation is all wrong? How can a person be “good” if they ignore God?

Some will say, “But I believe that God exists. Just not in the Christian God.”

Notice how Jesus responded to temptation, by quoting the Old Testament: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” (Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8) He didn’t say to worship any ‘ol god, but to worship the Lord. There are many false “gods” in the world, but only one God. I am reminded of James’ admonishment: “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (James 2:19, NLT)

Back to our original query: Are we basically good? Generally nice guys/gals? Mostly free from sin? That’s like asking if a glass of water that’s been repeatedly spit in is still “mostly good to drink”. As Paul said, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes doctors have to be blunt in order to begin a process of healing. Jesus Himself noted “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)

Trying to ‘save ourselves’ (by our own effort) won’t work, either. I know that’s counterintuitive in our culture, because we’re always told to do it ourselves. But how can someone drowning in quicksand pull themselves out? The good news (that is, the “gospel”) is that we don’t have to save ourselves. In Jesus Christ, God Himself came into our world in the flesh in order to save us from ourselves and certain death, and show us the way. Paul explains:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Maybe you’ve never been inside a church and your life (I know I avoided churches like the plague before I started following Jesus) and have never considered this before. Or maybe you grew up in a church but never heard any of this before. There are a lot of terrible churches out there, but that doesn’t affect one bit the truthfulness of what Jesus said and did.

No matter where you’re coming from, what you’ve just read is something worth thinking about. Anyone who says all the religions are basically the same has never really grasped what Jesus was offering: Good people don’t go to heaven. Forgiven people do.

All that remains is to accept God’s offer of grace.

Thanks for listening. Please feel free to read my story or contact me.

Further reading:

• More about Jesus – Includes a brief Flash presentation and plenty of links.
• Experience forgiveness – Begin your life anew today. It really can happen.
• Just Stop and Think – A 15-minute streaming video with more things to think about. It may change how you look at the world.
• Is the New Testament reliable? – Read some of my previous posts to learn why it is.

1 Thanks goes to Rev Victor Shepherd for his way of stating things so eloquently.
Note: Bible quotations are from the NIV or TNIV unless otherwise noted.

• When were the New Testament documents written?
• Who wrote the documents? Were they really eyewitnesses?

1. When were the New Testament documents written?

Although we cannot pinpoint exact dates for the New Testament books, we can use both internal evidence and external evidence to determine their approximate dating. (Most of the information in this section is adapted from Dr Paul Barnett’s excellent book Is the New Testament Reliable?)

First, the external evidence. In the early church fathers we find many quotations of the New Testament. Three authors who wrote at the turn of the century (Clement in about 96AD, Ignatius in about 108AD, and Polycarp in about 110AD) all quote heavily from the New Testament. In summary, the only two books not quoted by these writers is 2 John and Jude. This of course does not mean that these two books were definitely not written by 100AD, but only that they were not specifically quoted by these three early writers. So on this basis, we can conclude that all (or nearly all) of the New Testament books were written before the end of the first century.

However, we can in many cases be more exact. In the case of Paul’s letters, I’ll quote Dr Barnett rather than try to reinterpret his already concise prose:

When Paul arrived in Corinth, he met Aquila and Priscilla who had recently “come from Italy … because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome” (Acts 18:2) This dovetails with the Roman historian Suetonius, who wrote that Claudius banished from Rome all Jews because they were continually making disturbances about Christ and Christianity (Claudius 25). Scholars of Roman history date this expulsion to c. AD 49. We conclude that Paul arrived in Corinth some time during AD 50. An inscription that fixes the beginning of Gallio’s one-year appointment as proconsul in Achaia at July AD 51 confirms this, a detail that corresponds with the reference in Acts that “when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack upon Paul and brought him before the tribunal” (Acts 18:12) Since 1 Thessalonians, by common consent, was written from Corinth soon after Paul’s arrival there (1 Thes 3:6 and Acts 18:5), we conclude that this letter was written in AD 50. This represents the earliest generally accepted extremity of the time frame. Few scholars dispute this date, although some may place Paul’s letter to the Galatians earlier, about AD 48. (Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 37-38)

So the earliest of Paul’s letters was written approximately 20 years after Jesus’ death. This fact is not generally disputed among scholars (Christian or not). The earliest of Paul’s letters are in fact the earliest books of the New Testament. Barnett goes on to explain that the latest of Paul’s letters would have been written at the end of the sixties (before AD 68 when Nero died).

While 20 years may seem like a long time, this is much, much sooner than other historical documents we have that are considered reliable by all historians. However, we have even earlier material than this. In 1 Corinthians (written by Paul in about 54AD) chapter 15, verses 3-8 comprise an early church creed which is much earlier than 1 Corinthians itself. There are many reasons why scholars conclude this is an early creed (See Gary Habermas in Lee Strobel’s book Case for Christ, 229):

• Paul introduces it by using the words received and passed on. The original Greek words were rabbinic terms for passing on tradition.
• The stylized structure of the passage indicates it’s a creed. (It is similar to other known creeds.)
• The creed uses words and phrases that Paul rarely or never uses himself.
• It uses certain words that are similar to Hebrew ways of narration.
• There is no copy of 1 Corinthians that lacks the creed.

The creed itself has been dated to within only a few years after Jesus’ death! For comparison, this creed is at least 100 years earlier than the so-called “Gospel of Judas” which was recently made famous. This is the equivalent of a newsflash in ancient times. Here is what the creed, the earliest Christian testimony we have, affirms: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles …”

This of course does not prove the claim is true, merely that the Christian gospel claim was not made up many years later, but was in fact preached from the very beginning. For an analysis of this passage and the significance of its contents, see The Significance Of 1 Corinthians 15.

2. Who wrote the documents? Were they really eyewitnesses?

Given that the New Testament documents were written within the timeframe that the eyewitnesses to Jesus were still alive (as per above) it is certainly possible that the documents were indeed written by eyewitnesses, as the authors themselves claim to be (ex. Luke 1:2, John 21:24, 1 John 1:3, 2 Peter 1:16). I have already written a brief post on Dr Richard Bauckham’s excellent book (published just this year) Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which argues persuasively from (again) both internal and external evidence that the New Testament was indeed written by eyewitnesses.

If you are interested in this topic, here’s a link to Bauckham’s brief interview with Christianity Today magazine: They Really Saw Him: Richard Bauckham argues that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, not “anonymous community traditions.” The key, he says, is in the names.

So in summary, we do have very good reasons to believe that the New Testament documents were both written extremely early (especially compared to all other ancient historical documents) and also were written by eyewitnesses as claimed by the authors themselves.

The idea that science disproves the possibility of miracles is, IMHO, extremely misguided. Science is able to confirm that certain things are testable and repeatable, that is, empirically verifiable in the present. Miracles, by nature, are none of these things. For example, today as I rode home on the bus I glanced out the window as the bus came to a stop. To my surprise I saw a rabbit sitting on the grass beside the road. I had never seen a rabbit here before (a fairly built-up area along a heavily trafficked road). This event is still not testable (you’ll have to take my word for it that I observed a rabbit earlier today) and not repeatable (even if we were to get on the same bus, drive along the same road, etc, the circumstances could never be exactly the same) and yet the event really did occur. There is no reason to claim that this was a miraculous event, but even here science cannot test whether this mundane event occurred.

Therefore it’s no surprise that science has not (cannot) confirm (or disprove) the miraculous. Richard R. Purtill notes in his essay “Defining Miracles” (also part of the aforementioned book) that scientists “tend to confine their investigations to the ordinary course of nature and to ignore such exceptions as might be made to the course of nature by God, since exceptions brought about by personal agency cannot be predicted from a study of what normally happens”.

Trying to test whether a supposed miraculous event occurred in history using the scientific method is sort of like trying to determine whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it. It’s inappropriate methodology. There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing natural phenomenon. However a miracle is not natural, and therefore it is misguided to dismiss, say, the resurrection by appealing to science that shows that people rising from the dead is impossible. Of course we observe that dead people stay dead, and that’s entirely the point. This wasn’t lost on first century people either: Jesus’ resurrection was a big deal because people knew that dead people are supposed to stay dead.

This does not mean that science has no part in examining the truth claims of miracles, but only that as unique events in history, a miracle claim is more properly investigated as history rather than science.

Further reading: The Facts Concerning the Resurrection: Don’t believe the New Testament is a reliable historical source? I’d argue that the NT is historically reliable, but try let’s throwing out most of what it contains, and only focus on facts agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars, Christian or not. What we find might surprise you!

Here is the relevant excerpt from my paper. The footnotes are removed; the majority of the references are from Dr Bauckham’s book. (See “Further Reading” below for more sources.)

Although everyone recognizes the limitations of eyewitness testimony, it is still powerful evidence that was highly valued in the ancient world and is still valued highly today. Communication in the first century was primarily oral, necessitating that people develop strong memory skills. Some first century Rabbis even memorized entire books of the Old Testament! (I personally once witnessed a man dramatically recite the entire book of Luke from memory.) This lends credibility to the idea that the eyewitness accounts would still be reliable many years after the events themselves took place; even today amazing feats of memory are still possible, especially when the circumstances are ripe for strong memory retention.

Ancient historians did not place as high a value on recording the exact words spoken by an individual, and instead attempted to communicate the speaker’s intended meaning as fully as possible. Therefore, while different authors may record a speaker’s words slightly differently, their testimonies can still be reliable. Additionally, if the stories in the gospel were all related in exactly the same way, we might suspect collusion between the authors: “If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.” (Craig L. Blomberg) That the gospels relate the same events but in slightly different ways suggests that what they present is a common historical core from different perspectives.

If the New Testament material comes directly from eyewitness accounts rather than secondary or tertiary accounts, the case for the reliability of the New Testament is strengthened. Since the New Testament was written within the lifespans of those who observed the events it records, the eyewitnesses to the events would still be alive to verify the contents of the New Testament when it was written and began to be circulated. [Note: In the full essay I develop the case for the early dating of the New Testament texts.]

A good case can be made that Mark’s gospel is based on eyewitness testimony, namely that of Peter, and perhaps also of Mark himself and others. (Cases can also be made for other New Testament documents.) Firstly, Mark’s gospel places more emphasis on Peter than any other gospel. For example, Mark notes Jesus speaks to Peter directly twice in Gethsemane, whereas the other gospels are more general. Mark also mentions Peter more times per page than any other gospel writer. Secondly, Mark uses the technique of inclusio (a literary “framing” device) at the beginning and end of his gospel which likely indicates that Peter is the source of the gospel’s material. Finally, external testimony from Papias in the late first or early second century (as quoted by Eusebius) confirms Mark as author of the gospel and his use of Peter as a source. Taken together, this evidence strongly suggests that Mark’s gospel is based on testimony from Peter, a direct eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry. (Bauckham also suggests several other lines of evidence, such as the curious wording of section 13 of the “Gospel of Thomas”.)

A unique and puzzling detail in Mark’s gospel is recorded in Mark 14:51-52: “A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” This seemingly inconsequential incident does not appear in the other gospels. Why did the author choose to include it? It seems quite possible that the author himself was the “young man … following Jesus” (the young man was not one of the apostles) and therefore chose to include this incident in the gospel because it involved himself. This theory is inconclusive, but nonetheless an intriguing possibility, and regardless it is an example of one of many “anonymous witnesses” in the gospels, any of which are probable eyewitness sources for the gospels.

Further Reading:

• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – Fantastic scholarly book that argues for the eyewitness sources behind the New Testament. (Link is to Amazon.com)
• The Historical Reliability of the Gospels – Craig L. Blomberg gives twelve reasons why the New Testament is trustworthy.
• Classic eBook: The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? – Online version of F. F. Bruce’s classic book. (Note that this is the 5^th edition; the 6^th is the most recent, and available from Amazon and other booksellers.)

Greg Koukl examines the idea of having lost books in his article “No Lost Books of the Bible“. In summary:

[T]here are two ways of looking at this: a supernatural or natural perspective. I would contend that there are no other ways of looking at this question; no other options. No matter who you are out there you either think of the Bible as being God’s inspired Word … or the Bible is merely the statement of beliefs of the early church, without any supernatural content.

Is it possible that in the first sense of the word Bible that the books could be lost? Wait a minute, if God is supernaturally overseeing it, then God is supernaturally involved in seeing that His book gets written down and preserved. So we have God’s supernatural protection if it has a supernatural quality to it. You may say that the supernatural element is bogus, but you can see that from this sense of the definition that it’s not really possible to think that God could lose His own book.

Maybe the Bible isn’t supernatural, it’s a statement of beliefs of the leaders of the church. Okay, if that’s the case then who has the final word on which books belong in the Bible? The leaders of the early church. Therefore, by very definition any books that they cast into outer darkness are not part of the Bible. It’s their decision to decide which books represent their beliefs.

Related reading:

• Is the New Testament Text Reliable? – “Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.”
• A Mountain of Manuscripts – Shows just how many ancient copies of the NT are in existence.
• Video: What Is the Story Behind the Gnostic Documents? – Why the “Gospel” of Philip and others don’t deserve serious consideration.