Reliability of Scripture

North Face

Step Canyon

But, what about my Bible? How do I dissolve doubts for others when I’ve woken up in the middle of the night myself on the subject?

What about the Jesus Seminar, National

Geographic? History Channel? PBS specials,

etc.?

The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrayed him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish Sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms.

An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as “Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.

According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.

Their sub-topic was and still is on the recurring theme "a Search for the Historical Jesus".

As a group they had generally concluded that less than 20% of Christ's quoted words were historically supportable. They held that religious beliefs about Christ were largely espoused from a "Christ-myth".

The seminar treats the canonical gospels as historical sources that represent Jesus' actual words and deeds as well as elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity.

Unconcerned with canonical boundaries, they asserted that the Gospel of Thomas may have more authentic material than the Gospel of John.

The Book of Acts records or reports that there was a special event that took place at Pentecost, which would have been the next pilgrimage festival after the Passover at which Jesus died.

And at that time the disciples of Jesus were gathered together in Jerusalem unsure of what their future would be, when all of a sudden the spirit took hold of them…

The historical reality is probably much more complex. The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry. Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience, if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that.

( Excerpts from Diversity of Christianity, Harold Attridge, Yale School of Divinity….featured and characteristic theory set of PBS programs)

Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas consists of 16 chapters which document Jesus' teaching about spiritual matters and cosmology. Judas is the only one of Jesus' disciples who accurately understands the words of his master. This Gospel contains few narrative elements; essentially, the Gospel records how Judas was taught by Jesus the true meaning of his message, and was then stoned to death by the other disciples.

The Gospel contains ideas which contradicted those circulating in the early Christian church. The author argues that God is essentially a "luminous cloud of light" who exists in an imperishable realm.

Eleven of the disciples Jesus chose to spread his message misunderstood the central tenets of His teaching. They were obsessed with the physical world of the senses. They continued to practice religious animal sacrifice, which pleased the lower gods but did not help to foster a connection with the true God. They wrongly taught that those martyred in the name of Christ would be bodily resurrected.

In contrast, Jesus is able to teach Judas the true meaning of his life, ministry and death.

DaVinci Code, by Dan Brown

"Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." (Ian McClellan as Sir Teabing)

"Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?“ (Audry Tatou as Sophie) "A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added

Gospel of Thomas

2nd Century Gnostic Documents Gnostic: The Gospel of Thomas Gnostic: The Secret Book of James Gnostic: Basilides Gnostic: Naassene Fragment Gnostic: Gospel of Mary Gnostic: Dialogue of the Savior Gnostic: Gospel of the Savior Gnostic: Marcion Gnostic: Epiphanes Gnostic: Ophite Diagrams Gnostic: Ptolemy Gnostic: Gospel of Truth Gnostic: Excerpts of Theodotus Gnostic: Heracleon Gnostic: Acts of Peter Gnostic: Acts of Thomas

I guess it came to a head for me during an early morning Bible study, as I listened to some pastor complaining about a Peter Jennings interview he had watched on TV of members of a group called "the Jesus Seminar“, the group of professors that I was hearing about…this somewhat media-savvy, dedicated to conducting their own investigations about the validity...the reliability... of the New Testament records.

I decided I would try to develop my own little research, take a journey down the rabbit hole...no matter where it took me. Whatever the outcome, I knew then, finally, that I must be willing to apply the same rigor to my beliefs about the New Testament that I generally am forced to apply professionally every day in most other areas of my life.

The first challenge...where in the world do I start...what is my approach? Needed to solidify my research objectives...etc.

I went to the ACF bookstore and found McDowell’s Evidences, New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable by FF Bruce, and then I went to the Internet to buy some other resources for my research.

During this time my wife and I went with a good friend to Ireland by way of London. On September 30th, 1997 we landed in Heathrow, rented a car and proceeded to drive (on the wrong side of the road) towards Ireland. En route we stopped at many places

• …Avebury, Salisbury (viewed one of the two original copies of the Magna Carta at the Salisbury Cathedral), Stonehenge, Old Sarum, Bath, etc. We arrived at a port city on the English west coast and took a ferry across the Irish Sea to Waterford Ireland.

• Our friend’s parents were Irish immigrants and so we visited some castles and locations from Waterford to Limerick. It was a great trip but we will try not to digress.

After Ireland we returned to England. During that time I was able to experience my first time at the British Museum and the British Library. At this time the two were combined.

I had brought with me a Biblical Archaeology reference which I used to check off various monuments, relics, artifacts, etc. that historically, in one way or another, supported the Biblical records of history. Indeed it was during that first visit that I began to see one of the great British contributions in the world.

• This intrigued me, because that meant, in my mind, that the Gospel of John, written about 25 years earlier in Ephesus, Turkey, was so widespread as to have been uncovered 100’s of miles away in Alexandria! Thanks to Alexander the great, the city’s namesake, the whole region and throughout Asia had been Hellenized, and thus Greek was commonly spoken.

It used to be said that “the sun never set on the British empire”. Indeed, their colonies were all over the globe. But, unlike some of the locals in various areas, the British prized ancient history and preserved findings, protecting them from looters and such, bringing many of them back to Britain and to the museum. Consequently, whether intentionally or not, the British colonizers were among those that protected the world from “revisionists”, who would later attempt to rewrite history.

When visiting the library section of the museum I inquired about the very oldest New Testament manuscripts that had ever been found. A librarian there told me that the very oldest he knew of was a fragment, equivalent to four chapters of the Gospel of John, written in Greek, found in Alexandria, Egypt, dated to about 125 AD.

I asked the librarian where this fragment was, and he said “Not here”. No, this fragment was kept at the Rylands Library at the university in Manchester, England. It was collected by a New Testament scholar who had been a professor there, by the name of F.F. Bruce.

I began connecting the dots. F.F. Bruce was the fellow oft quoted by McDowell in his “Evidences” reference, and who wrote that little jewel “the New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable”.

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[1] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

The Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic gospels claim to be proclamations about Jesus, of the same sort as the four better-known “gospels,” despite the fact that they do not narrate the story of Jesus, do not (for the most part) proclaim him as Messiah, do not tell of his death and resurrection—do not, in fact, do the very things which seem, from the Pauline evidence, to be what the earliest Christians regarded as “gospel.”

Ignatius: "God Himself was manifested in human form" (A.D. 105). Clement: "It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of

God" (A.D. 150). Justin Martyr: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He...is

even God" (A.D. 160). Irenaeus: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this" (A.D.

180). Tertullian: "...Christ our God" (A.D. 200). Origen: "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God..."

(A.D. 225). Novation: "...He is not only man, but God also..." (A.D. 235). Cyprian: "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God" (A.D. 250). Methodius: "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..."

(A.D.290). Lactantius: "We believe Him to be God" (A.D. 304). Arnobius: "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of

Divinity" (A.D. 305).

The Council of Nicaea - Not a close vote

The newly written Niceaean creed was adopted by a landslide vote. Only two voted against. That can hardly be called close. The church had suffered for three centuries under the tyranny of the Roman Empire. The Council of Nicaea came only fourteen years after the final persecution of Christians at the hand of the Emperor Galerius. The bishops of the church would never have compromised what had cast their fellow Christians so much. They would have rather suffered another three centuries of oppression and persecution than deny their Lord.

A priest named Arius presented his argument that Jesus Christ was not an eternal being, that He was created at a certain point in time by the Father. Bishops such as Alexander and the deacon Athanasius argued the opposite position: that Jesus Christ is eternal, just like the Father is. It was an argument pitting trinitarianism against monarchianism.

Constantine prodded the 300 bishops in the council make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. The statement of doctrine they produced was one that all of Christianity would follow and obey, called the “Nicene Creed.” This creed was upheld by the church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops at Nicea voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position of the church. The Council of Nicea upheld the doctrine of Christ’s true divinity, rejecting Arius’s heresy. The council did not invent this doctrine. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible already taught.

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The quotations are so numerous andwidespread that, if no manuscripts of theNew Testament were extant, the NewTestament could be reproduced from thewritings of the early Fathers alone.

Geisler, 1986

Indeed, so extensive are these citations that,if all other sources for our knowledge of thetext of the New Testament were destroyed,they would be sufficient alone for thereconstruction of practically the entire NewTestament.

Bruce Metzger, 1992

First of February 1999 we headed to London. We did a lot of touring, including “Chunneling” to Paris for a few days, but I was eager to return to the Museum/Library. Upon arriving at the British Museum, the first thing I noticed was a number of empty rooms where the library sections had been. Since I had been there a little over a year ago the Library had split off into its own facility some ¾ of a mile away. After a bit of work was completed at the Museum, I headed off to the new British Library.

And what a facility, holding at least every published, and many unpublished works gathered from the history of Great Britain. In the center of the main building is an environmentally controlled elevator the size of a house.

Upon entering the main building I spied out the layout and drifted over to the nearest computerized catalogue terminal.

Searching for a Dean Bergun provided no results. I thought “Oh Brother, do we have another mistaken reference?”

I But I stuck with it, and found a reference for a John William Bergun. And (well what do ya know?) he had been the Dean of Chichester (a college). Dean Bergun.

So I looked under all his published works but found absolutely no reference to any research he had done regarding 86000 plus Biblical quotes from any ancient Christian writers. Again I thought I had hit a dead end. I walked to a coffee shop outside of the Library to think about what to do next.

I returned a half hour later and asked a librarian for some ideas, and he suggested I consider the “unpublished manuscripts” department. In order to gain access to these rooms I had to be interviewed, and given a license. They wanted to know my personal information, my educational background, and what and why was I researching.

After receiving my license I went upstairs to the manuscripts rooms, signed in, and requested the unpublished works of Dean John William Bergun, pertaining to his research of the writings of Apostolic Fathers.

But they were only lists. The actual source locations are not given for each reference to Scripture. Consequently, one would either take Bergun’s word for it, or else look for each of them one’s self. I chose the latter. I notated each Scripture under the first group of writers, finishing one of the books and getting half through the other.

We returned to the States and I proceeded to get a copy of the writings themselves: writings by Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp and Marcus Felix. I already had a condensed copy of Eusebius’ History of the Church. I then proceeded to annotate a working copy of the New Testament, marking off each Scripture I found in these writings, and marking off the same in my notes from Bergun’s books.

I returned to the British Library several times over the next four years to note more writers listed in Bergun’s manuscripts, including Papias (nothing extant, but we rely on Eusebius), and Clement of Alexandria. My main focus was to limit myself to those up to Eusebius (about 147 martyrs mentioned, about 59 of which I found in Bergun’s references), with special attention up to Tertullian.

Now it would help anyone reading this to recall that my focus was never to receive instruction from, evaluate or draw conclusions about the particular lives or opinions of any of these writers, though I found them intriguing.

No, rather, I was strictly interested in documenting their awareness of the existence of the New Testament documents themselves. It became increasingly clear as well that these writers, when put in chronological order, can be found referencing each other quite often, providing internal evidences, in addition to the external evidence provided by the existence of the writings themselves.

An unbroken link to the Apostles, thus to Christ, the resurrection and the recorded Acts of these Apostles, their martyrdoms, and testimonies in the New Testament began to dominate, in my mind, other reliable records provided by historical, ancient documents.

There was more work to do.

Via this process I was able to find reference most of the New Testament by writers who wrote up to 140 AD and who had been alive as early as the 40s AD.

These Apostolic Fathers, as they are referred to, had, with fair unanimity, acknowledged without pause the existence and prevalence of Scripture, and of its authors.

An unbroken link to the Apostles, thus to Christ, the resurrection and the recorded Acts of these Apostles, their martyrdoms, and testimonies in the New Testament began to dominate, in my mind, other reliable records provided by historical, ancient documents.

There was more work to do.

So, continuing my particular story, by year ending 2004, a critical leg of my research had been completed to my satisfaction. I had, since 1997, traveled overseas, particularly to the British Library, five times. I had obtained from various sources a small library of references, and I soon wrecked most of them against any possibility of resale, as their pages were full of checkmarks, highlights, comments and pasted on tabs.

I was able to piece together much of the New Testament as quoted by Christian writers that lived from the 50s through 150’s AD. 500 of the 678 verses in Mark, about 900 of the 1068 verses in Matthew, about 950 of the 1151 verses found in Luke, about 650 of the 879 verses in John, about 60% of the text of Paul’s 14 epistles. Some of these writers (e.g. Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp) knew one or more of the original apostles and/or Paul, and the others that didn’t knew or knew of those that knew the apostles. More importantly, all referred to the same body of Scripture, quoting or referring to its authority and authenticity without equivocation. Now, within the synoptics there was some repetition. Some 606 verses in Mark are also in Matthew. About 350 verses in Mark are essentially contained in Luke. Only about 31 verses are in Mark that are not found in Luke or Matthew.

Needless to say, this trek developed within me a serious sense of confidence that slowly constructed a basis of joy inside. I started to smile a little bit more.

John, the last of the 12, declared in about 95 AD, ….That which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;…we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life.

And Peter, much earlier, proclaimed, For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty

These were not just martyrs, dying for what they believed, but died for the testimony of what they witnessed; what they said they saw, and recorded.

Clement of Rome: Approx 85 – 90 AD

Ignatius of Antioch: Approx 110 AD

Papias on Expositions of the Lord: Approx. 125 AD

Quadratus, Bishop of Athens: Approx 125 AD

Polycarp: Approx 140 AD

Luke’s Writings

Sufficient detail can’t be well presented in a short time, but suffice it to say that I was able to experience exhaustive details as presented within in the writings of Luke’s Gospel and in Acts, Paul’s writings, and in the other three Gospels. I felt a need to verify that inscriptions, papyri, manuscripts, letters and coinage, etc., have been or are being uncovered, verifying that the New Testament is in a background of the first century AD, unable to fit into a second century or later background.

This for me was a worthy work.

Though there are minor disputes from time to time about this or that event, it is nevertheless undeniable that, particularly during the last two centuries, archaeological evidences have accumulated. Digs have uncovered inscriptions, coins, tablets, boats, cities, scrolls, manuscripts, and writings of ancient historians.

First, we should distinguish Luke and his writings.

The only known gentile New Testament writer, Luke is credited with the Gospel of Luke and the

Book of Acts.

F.F. Bruce brings to our attention in THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS, ARE THEY RELIABLE? “Luke inherited the high traditions of Greek historical writing, and had access to various excellent sources of information about the events with which he dealt”.

Additionally, Luke was actually present at some of the events and places he records.

You may want to look up in your New Testament the following: Three Roman Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius), with references to Nero. The mention and descriptions of Herod and census, thus fixing Jesus birth, Roman governors Quirinius, Pilate, Sergius Paullus, Gallio, Felix and Festus, Herod Antipas the Tetrarch of Galilee, the vassal kings Herod Agrippa I and II, Berenice and Drusilla, Jewish priestly cast members Annas, Caiaphas and Ananias, Gamaliel.

Notice they are all in Luke and Acts, and nearly all of them no where else.

Most important to me is that every one of these figures, upon close review, are found to be verifiable, historical figures.

No writers of myths or fables ever, to my knowledge, DARE to cite such detail, because, with the inclusion of each detail, the writer takes the risk that his/her tale will be exposed as untrue. “Once Upon a Time”, and “In a Time Long Ago and a Place Far Away” are more familiar descriptions we find in fairy tales and myths.

So to avoid losing what few readers that may be let, I will mention just one of hundreds of historical, documented and confirmed facts found in the writings of Luke (Gospel and Acts)…Gallio. Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, is known to us as the brother of Seneca, the great Stoic Philosopher and tutor of Nero. The historical fact that Gallio became proconsul in July, 51 AD, is documented by an inscription found at Delphi, central Greece, which records the proclamation made by Emperor Claudius.

Indeed Luke was an historian of the first degree. His intense tendency for providing detail is a fortunate one for the person looking for historical validation. It could not have hurt Luke to have been associated with Paul, a profound Jewish scholar, for most of his ministry (see the “we” chapters and II Timothy, Chapter 4…(only Luke is with me).

But knowing what we now know, one will find it difficult to disagree with the conclusion by the eminent Rylands University scholar, F.F. Bruce, stating near the end of his afore-cited book “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a Christ-myth, but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as that of Julius Caesar. It is not the historians who propagate the “Christ-myth theories.” “

If any one wants more examples of the proven historicity of Luke…just ask. Be glad to put them down. I have a big list.

But here are a few more…

The birth of Jesus is fixed in the reign of the Emperor Augustus, when Herod the Great was king of Judaea, at the time of an imperial census. The commencement of the public ministry of John the Baptist, with which the 'Kerygma' proper begins, elaborately dated by a series of synchronisms in the Greek historical manner,' reminding the classical student of the synchronisms with which, for example, Thucydides dates the formal outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in the beginning of the second book of his History.

Names of note in the Jewish and Gentile world of his day appear in Luke's pages; in addition to the emperors, we meet the Roman governors Quirinius, Pilate, Sergius Paullus, Gallio, Felix, and Festus; Herod the Great and some of his descendants-Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee, the vassal kings Herod Agrippa I and II, Berenice and Drusilla; leading members of the Jewish priestly caste such as Annas, Caiaphas, and Ananias; Gamaliel, the greatest contemporary Rabbi and Pharisaic leader.

A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy. Luke takes this risk, and stands the test admirably. One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.

The accuracy of Luke's use of the various titles in the Roman Empire has been compared to the easy and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges their proper titles-the Provost of Oriel, the Master, Balliol, the Rector of Exeter, the President of Magdelen, and so on. A non-Oxonian like the present writer never feels quite at home with the multiplicity of these Oxford titles.

The ancient court of the Areopagus appears in the narrative of Paul's visit to Athens (Acts xvii. 19, 22). It was the most venerable of all Athenian institutions, and had lost most of its ancient power in the fifth century BC with the growth of Athenian democracy, but it regained much of its prestige under the Roman Empire. In particular, there is evidence that at this time it exercised a certain control over public lecturers, and it was therefore natural that Paul, arriving in Athens with his new doctrine, should be invited to propound it 'in the midst of the Areopagus' (not, as the AV says, on 'Mars' hill', for though that was the place where the court had met in primitive times, and from which it received its name, it no longer assembled there, but in the Royal Colonnade in the Athenian marketplace).

The chief official in Malta is called 'the first man of the island' (Acts xxviii. 7), a title vouched for in both Greek and Latin inscriptions as the proper designation of the Roman governor of Malta.

When Paul arrived in Rome, he was handed over, according to one textual tradition, to an official called he 'stratopedarch' (Acts xxviii. 16), identified by the German historian Mommsen with the princeps peregrinorum, the commander of the imperial couriers, of whom the centurion Julius (Acts xxvii. 1) appears to have been one.

Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee in the time of our Lord, seems to have been given the courtesy title of 'king' by his Galilaan subjects (cf. Mt. xiv. 9; Mk. vi. 14).

But unlike his father Herod the Great and hi' nephew Herod Agrippa I he was not promoted to royal status by the emperor, and had to be content with the lesser title 'tetrarch'. Luke therefore never calls him king, but always tetrarch (e.g. Lk. iii r, 19).

Josephus informs us that towards the end of Herod's reign (4 BC) the Emperor Augustus treated him more as a subject than as a friend,' and that all Judaea took an oath of allegiance to Augustus as well as to Herod.

The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judaea was during Herod's reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.