Institute of Biblical Defense

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

The deity of Christ is hard to accept for many people. For one to admit that Jesus is God in the flesh is to admit that he owes Him complete allegiance. Recognition of Jesus’ Godhood calls for the abandonment of one’s autonomy. Therefore, many people refuse to worship Jesus as God and consider Him to be merely a great human teacher. Mohandas K. Gandhi said of Christ:

It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God. And that only he who believed in Him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God . . . then all men were like God and could be God Himself.1

The internationally respected theologian, John Hick, also denies Christ’s deity:

Now it used to be assumed—and in some Christian circles is still assumed—that this Jesus, who lived in Palestine in the first third of the first century AD, was conscious of being God incarnate, so that you must either believe him or reject him as a deceiver or a megalomaniac. “Mad, bad, or God” went the argument. And of course if Jesus did indeed claim to be God incarnate, then this dilemma, or trilemma, does arise. But did he claim this? The assumption that he did is largely based on the Fourth Gospel, for it is here that Jesus makes precisely such claims. He says “I and the Father are one,” “No one comes to the Father, but by me” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” But it is no secret today, after more than a hundred years of scholarly study of the scriptures, that very few New Testament experts now hold that the Jesus who actually lived ever spoke those words, or their Aramaic equivalents. They are much more probably words put into his mouth by a Christian writer who is expressing the view of Christ which had been arrived at in his part of the church, probably two or three generations after Jesus’ death. And it is likewise doubted whether the few sayings of the same kind in the other gospels are authentic words of Jesus. How, then, did this Christian deification of Jesus—which began within the first decades after his death and was essentially completed by the end of the first century—take place? Such a development is not as hard to understand in the ancient world as it would be today. . .2

It is interesting that Hick admits that the New Testament, quotes Jesus as claiming to be God. Second, he acknowledges that the deity of Christ was being taught within a few decades of Christ’s death (which is what the creeds prove). And, third, Hick recognizes that the deity of Christ was completely established as church doctrine by the end of the first century AD. However, by admitting these three facts, Hick is inadvertently conceding that all the available evidence points to the authenticity of Christ’s claims to be God. Surely the apostles would have stopped this heresy (if indeed it was a heresy) when it started just decades after Christ’s death. The Apostle John would also have opposed this teaching as it was being established as church dogma at the end of the first century AD.

Contrary to what John Hick believes, true scholarship bases its decisions on the evidence, not on mere speculation. All the available evidence points to the fact that Christ did claim to be God. The eyewitnesses who heard these claims died horrible deaths refusing to deny their validity. No liberal scholar has ever proposed an adequate explanation as to how a legend that Jesus claimed to be God could develop while the original apostles (those who personally knew Christ) were still alive and leading the new church. Legends take centuries to develop into dogma.3 Any attempted origination of legends cannot get started while honest eyewitnesses are still alive (especially if these honest eyewitnesses hold positions of authority in the church). Therefore, liberal scholars like Hick can believe what they wish. However, to deny that Christ claimed to be God is to simply ignore all the available evidence. Liberal scholars throw out any passages of the Bible that do not agree with their antisupernaturalistic biases, but this is not true scholarship. True scholarship examines the evidence; it does not speculate as to how the evidence can be explained away. The World Book Encyclopedia is an example of the high regard in which many people esteem Jesus, while stopping short of calling Him God:

Jesus Christ was the founder of the Christian religion. Christians believe that He is the Son of God who was sent to earth to save mankind. Even many persons who are not Christians believe that He was a great and wise teacher. He has probably influenced humanity more than anyone else who ever lived.4

It is not wise to call Jesus merely a great man and teacher since He claimed to be God. For no merely great man or wise teacher would claim to be God. If Jesus claimed to be God, then we must view Him as either a liar, insane, or God. There are no other alternatives, and no ignoring of the evidence will help.

JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD

In chapter twenty-five it was shown that the message found in the New Testament is one and the same as the message of the first generation church. The ancient creeds found in the New Testament predate the New Testament and represent the teachings of the apostles themselves.5 Several of these ancient creeds teach the deity of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus claimed to be God. The leaders of the first generation church taught that Jesus is God, and they were willing to die for their testimony. Hence, there is no reason (apart from an a priori bias) to reject the claims of deity made by Christ in the New Testament. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God:

But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I myself am working.” For this cause the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18).

Whenever Jesus spoke of a unique Father-Son relationship between God the Father and Himself, the Jews understood Him to be claiming equality with God the Father. Jesus spoke to the Jews in their language. He communicated to them on their terms. They understood Jesus to be claiming to be deity. If Jesus never meant to claim to be God, then He was one of the poorest communicators who ever lived. If Jesus was misunderstood by His listeners, He should have clarified His words. A clear and articulate representation of His words would have been in His best interest; He was executed for blasphemy (Mark 14:60-64).

Jesus taught that He deserved the same honor that the Father deserved:

For not even the Father judges anyone, But He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:22-23).

Since the Father is God, the honor due Him is worship. Therefore, Jesus taught that He also deserved to be worshiped. Despite the fact that the Old Testament Law forbid the worship of any being other than God (Exodus 20:1-6), Jesus accepted worship on numerous occasions (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; 20:28-29). Jesus also stated:

You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am (John 8:23-24; 58).

The Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus’ claim to deity in this passage: “they picked up stones to throw at Him” (John 8:59). The comments of J. Dwight Pentecost are helpful:

Christ affirmed, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” (v. 58). “I AM” was the name of the Self-existing God who had revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:14). Jesus Christ was claiming to be “I AM”, the Self-existent God. He was claiming eternity. To the Jews this was blasphemy.6

Merrill C. Tenney also elaborates on this specific claim of Christ:

In actuality the phrase “I am” is an assertion of absolute, timeless existence, not merely of a personal identity as the English equivalent would suggest. A comparison of the use of the phrase, “I am” with self-revelation of Jehovah in the Old Testament shows that much the same terminology was employed. God, in commissioning Moses (Ex. 3:14), said: “Thus shalt thou say to unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” When the Jews heard Jesus say, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” they took the statement to mean not priority to Abraham, but an assertion of deity. To them it was blasphemy, and they picked up stones to cast at Him.7

It is important to note two things about this passage. First, Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” This would have been merely a claim to have preexisted Abraham. Though this would be a bold claim in itself, Christ actually said far more than that. Jesus was claiming that His existence is always in the present tense. In other words, He was claiming eternal existence for Himself. He was declaring himself to have absolutely no beginning. He was claiming that He was not bound by time. He was declaring Himself to be the eternal God. Second, Christ probably spoke these words in Aramaic (the common language of the Hebrews of his day). Therefore, He probably did not use the Greek words “ego eimi” for “I AM.” Rather, He would have used the Hebrew “YHWH.” This was the title for the eternal God. Out of reverence for God, the Jews never spoke this word. So here, Christ was not only be speaking the unspeakable title of God (YHWH), but He was using it to refer to Himself. Properly understood, this was probably Christ’s most unambiguous claim to deity. The Jews clearly understood this, and for this reason they attempted to stone him. Another clear claim to deity made by Christ is the following passage:

“I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God” (John 10:30-33).

Concerning this passage, Merrill F. Unger wrote, “Jesus asserted His unity of essence with the Father, hence His unequivocal deity. . . and the Jews understood Him.”8 In this passage, Jesus clearly claimed to be equal with God the Father. Christ said that His nature is identical to that of the Father. The Jews understood Him to be calling Himself God. They later sentenced Him to death for these claims to deity.

Jesus also made other claims to deity. He said that, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). When He prayed to the Father, He asked the Father to return to Him the glory which He and the Father shared before the universe was created (John 17:5).

The apostles were Jesus’ closest associates. They were more familiar with the teachings of Christ than anyone else and they called Jesus God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). This is further confirmation that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.

Considering the strong evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, Christ’s claims to deity cannot be considered as legends. The teaching that Jesus is God predates the New Testament (as shown in the ancient creeds), and is best explained by attributing the source of this doctrine to Jesus Himself. It must be remembered that the apostles were not liars. They were sincere enough about their beliefs to die for them, and they recorded unambiguous statements made by Christ attributing deity to Himself.

The deity of Christ is not a legend. Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. Hence, one cannot consider Him to be simply a great man; for no mere man claims to be God. If Jesus is not God, then He was either a liar or insane. There are no other options.

JESUS WAS NOT A LIAR

The absurd idea that Jesus was a liar who claimed to be God can be easily refuted. For Christ is considered, even by many who reject His claim to deity, to have taught the highest standard of morality known to man. His teachings have motivated such actions as the abolition of slavery, government by the consent of the people, the modern hospital system, education for all children, and charitable programs for the needy. A liar could not have possibly encouraged these movements.

Christ has had a positive impact on mankind like no other person. It is extremely unlikely that so much good could come from a deceiver who led people astray by claiming to be God. The eyewitness accounts of the apostles display the tremendous love Christ had for people. It is not possible that a self-centered and egotistical liar could express genuine affection for his fellow man like that expressed by Christ. The question can also be asked, “Would a liar die for his lie?” It is doubtful that Jesus would lie and then suffer death by crucifixion as a consequence.

It has already been shown that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event and not a hoax. But, why would God raise a blaspheming liar from the dead? Christ offered His resurrection as proof for His claims to deity (John 2:18-21; Matthew 12:38-40). Therefore, His resurrection proves the validity of His claims to be God. He claimed to be God and then proved it by doing what no mere man could do—He rose from the dead.

JESUS WAS NOT INSANE

Christ’s claims to deity have been shown not to be legends or lies, but the possibility remains that Jesus may have been insane. Could it be that Jesus claimed to be God because He was mentally disturbed?

Often, people compare Jesus of Nazareth with other respected religious leaders. However, very few of these leaders (if any) claimed to be God in a unique sense. Some have claimed to be God, but then teach that we are all God. Jesus claimed to be God in a sense that no other man could claim to be God. Usually, when a religious leader makes a claim as bold as this, it is evidence that he is unbalanced. Charles Manson and David Koresh are two examples of this type of religious leader. The evidence for their instability is obvious. However, this is not so in the case of Jesus. He made bold claims to deity, but also backed these claims by the life He lived and the things He did.

Declaring Christ to be insane is not a common view. Nearly everyone admits that He was a great teacher, even if they reject His deity. However, insane people make lousy teachers. The teachings of Christ are not the teachings of a mad man. They are the greatest teachings ever taught by a man, and this man claimed to be God incarnate.

The miraculous life of Christ is also evidence that He was not insane. Christ gave evidence for His bold claims through His supernatural works. The apostles were eyewitnesses of these miracles. Even the enemies of Christ, the Jewish religious leaders of His day, did not deny His miracles. Instead, they stated in their Talmud that Jesus “practiced sorcery.”9 Though they rejected Jesus’ message, they were forced to admit that He did supernatural works. However, the powerful influence for good that Christ has had upon mankind declares His miracles to be from God and not from Satan. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles show that He was not insane. They provide strong evidence to support His claim to be God.

Another piece of evidence that shows Christ was not insane is the fact that His life and works were prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. A small fraction of the prophecies He fulfilled are listed below:

1. He was a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; fulfilled in Matthew 1:1-2 and Luke 3:34)
2. He was from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; fulfilled in Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33)
3. He was a descendant of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1; fulfilled in Matthew 1:5-6 and Luke 3:32)
4. He was a descendant of David (Jeremiah 23:5; fulfilled in Matthew 1:1, 6 and Luke 3:31)
5. He was born to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; fulfilled in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:34-35)
6. He was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:1-7)
7. His birth announced by a star (Numbers 24:7; fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-2)
8. His forerunner (Isaiah 40:3; fulfilled in Matthew 3:1-3 and Mark 1:2-4)
9. The specific time of His first coming (Daniel 9:24-27 predicts that the Messiah would be executed before the temple would be destroyed. The destruction of the temple occurred in 70AD. Matthew 27:1-2, 26 states that Jesus was crucified when Pilate was governor of Judea. Pilate reigned as governor in Judea from 26AD to 36AD.)
10. His miracles (Isaiah 35:4-6; fulfilled in Matthew 11:1-6)
11. His parables (Psalm 78:2; fulfilled in Matthew 13:3)
12. He was rejected by the Jews (Isaiah 53; fulfilled in Matthew 23:37; 27:22-25; Romans 10:1-3; 11:25)
13. He received a wide Gentile following (Isaiah 42:1-4; fulfilled in Romans 9:30-33; 11:11 and confirmed in the history of the church)
14. He was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13; fulfilled in Matthew 26:14-16)
15. He was forsaken by His disciples (Zechariah 13:7; fulfilled in Matthew 26:56)
16. He entered Jerusalem on a donkey while receiving a king’s welcome (Zechariah 9:9; fulfilled in Matthew 21:1-11)
17. He was silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; fulfilled in Matthew 26:63; 27:14)
18. He was crucified (Psalm 22:16; fulfilled in Matthew 27:35)
19. Soldiers cast lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; fulfilled in Matthew 27:35)
20. His bones were not broken (Psalm 34:20; fulfilled in John 19:31-34)
21. His side was pierced (Zechariah 12:10; fulfilled in John 19:34)
22. He was buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; fulfilled in Matthew 27:57-60)
23. His resurrection from the dead (Psalm 16:10; fulfilled in Matthew 28:1-9)
24. His ascension (Psalm 68:18; fulfilled in Acts 1:9-11)
25. His position at the Father’s right hand (Psalm 110:1; fulfilled in Hebrews 1:3)

As was noted earlier, these are just a few of the many prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ.10 Even liberal scholars admit that these prophecies were recorded hundreds of years before Christ’s birth. Although they deny the traditional early dates of the Old Testament books, it is almost universally accepted that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) was completed two hundred years before Christ was born.11

Most liberals do not consider some of the prophecies listed above as having been fulfilled by Christ. This is because these liberals a priori deny the possibility of miracles. Since they deny Christ’s resurrection, they also deny that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy of the resurrection. Even if one removes the Old Testament predictions concerning the supernatural aspects of Christ’s life, one is still left with the evidence from the fulfillment of prophecies of the non-supernatural aspects of Christ’s life. Norman Geisler has noted that the chances of Christ fulfilling just sixteen of these prophecies by mere coincidence are 1 in 1045 (a one with forty-five zeroes after it).12

In fact, three of these Old Testament predictions concerning the Messiah—Daniel 9:26; Isaiah 42:4; Isaiah 53—are enough to prove that only Jesus of Nazareth meets the messianic qualifications. Daniel 9:26 stated that the Messiah would be executed before the destruction of the temple (which occurred in 70AD). Isaiah 42:4 teaches that the Gentile nations would expectantly await Christ’s law. Isaiah 53 declares that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth is the only person in history who has fulfilled all three of these prophecies. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and was crucified around 30AD (forty years before the temple was destroyed), the Jews rejected Him, and He received a wide Gentile following.

The life of an insane man would not be prophesied. It is also unlikely that these predictions would refer to an insane man as the Messiah (God’s anointed one) and “the mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6). More than 200 years before Jesus’ birth, His life and works were predicted. He fulfilled these prophecies and performed many miracles. It is absurd for someone to call Jesus insane. To accept His claims is the only reasonable response.

The historical evidence shows that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by raising Himself from the dead. History shows these claims are not legends, and that He was not a liar, insane, or merely a great man. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.

THEREFORE, JESUS IS GOD

The following ancient creed was formulated and proclaimed by the first generation church. It declares Jesus to be God and Savior, and instructs all creation to surrender to His Lordship:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

This ancient creed states that the day will come when all creation will bow down before Christ and confess that He is Lord. One can bow to Jesus now, or one can bow to Jesus later, but, the fact remains, that the day will come when all will bow before Christ, both the saved and the unsaved. The saved will bow before Jesus to worship Him as their Savior and King. The lost will bow before Him, due to their fear of His power and authority.

ENDNOTES

1 Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi Autobiography (Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1948), 170.

2 John Hick, The Center of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1968), 27-28.

3 Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds., Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 154.

4 The World Book Encyclopedia vol. 11, (Chicago: World Book, Inc., 1985), 82.

5 Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 148-149.

6 J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1981), 288.

7 Merrill C. Tenney, John, the Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 150.

8 Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 555.

9 Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, 98.

10 For a fuller treatment of Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, see: Josh McDowell, 141-177.

11 Ibid.,144.

12 Geisler, Apologetics, 343.

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

CHRIST’S TEACHINGS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT

This work has shown that the evidence demonstrates that Jesus is God. Therefore, whatever Jesus taught should be accepted as true and authoritative. John W. Wenham discussed Christ’s view of the Old Testament:

Our Lord not only believed the truth of the Old Testament history and used the Scriptures as final authority in matters of faith and conduct, he also regarded the writings themselves as inspired. To Him, Moses, the prophets, David, and the other Scripture writers were given their messages by the Spirit of God.1

Some of Christ’s teachings concerning the Old Testament are as follows:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all has been accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18).

And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ ” (Matthew 15:3-4)

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? (Matthew 22:31-32)

He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down. . .” (Mark 7:9-13).

David himself said in the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, until I put Thine enemies beneath Thy feet.’ ” (Mark 12:36)

It is abundantly clear that Jesus considered the entire Old Testament (what the Jews of His day called “the Law and the Prophets”) to be the inspired Word of God. He referred to the Old Testament authors as prophets (Matthew 11:13; 12:39; 22:40; 23:31-35; 24:15; 26:56; Luke 16:16-17, 31; 18:31; 24:44; John 6:45), meaning proclaimers of God’s truth. In fact, Jesus spoke of the prophets as beginning with Abel and ending with Zechariah (Luke 11:49-51). This covers the exact time period of the Old Testament, from creation to about 400BC. Since Christ is God Himself, his view of the Old Testament must be correct. Therefore, the Old Testament is the written Word of God.

CHRIST’S VIEW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Christ ascended to heaven before the New Testament was recorded. However, the promises He made to his apostles guaranteed that the New Testament would be the inspired Word of God:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:19-20).

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away (Mark 13:31).

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you (John 14:26).

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning (John 15:26-27).

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come (John 16:13).

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 1:8).

From these quotes of Christ, five conclusions can be drawn. First, Jesus promised that His teachings would be preserved. Second, He said that the Holy Spirit would remind the apostles of all that He told them. Third, the Holy Spirit would reveal future events to the apostles. Fourth, the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth (prevent them from promoting doctrinal errors). Fifth, the Holy Spirit would empower the apostles to be Christ’s authoritative representatives to the world.

From the above conclusions it is clear that Christ promised to preserve His teachings through the apostles’ writings. Obviously, these writings make up the New Testament. Since Jesus is almighty God, His plan cannot be thwarted. Therefore, since He promised to preserve His words through the teachings of the apostles, then their teachings (which have been passed on to future generations) are the teachings of Christ. Hence, they are the Word of God

It should also be noted that Jesus taught that only the Old Testament and the teachings of His apostles (the New Testament) were the Word of God. The evidence declares Jesus to be God. Jesus taught that both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God. Therefore, the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God.

THE SUPERNATURAL WISDOM OF THE BIBLE

The evidence presented above is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible is God’s Word. Still, there are other factors which help corroborate this evidence. The supernatural wisdom and the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible verify that the Bible is God’s Word.

Christian thinkers such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)2 and Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984)3 have noted that only the Bible offers an adequate explanation for both man’s greatness and man’s wretchedness. Modern man, even with all his accumulated knowledge, cannot sufficiently account for both aspects in man. Atheistic evolutionists may be able to explain the wretchedness of man, for they see man as merely an animal, but they cannot satisfactorily account for man’s greatness. New Age Pantheists recognize man’s greatness by attributing godhood to him, but, they offer no convincing reason why man is so wretched. The Bible alone offers an adequate explanation for both aspects of man. Man is great because he was created in God’s image; he is wretched because he is in a fallen state.4 This indicates that the wisdom found in the Bible supersedes the wisdom of man.

Evidence for the supernatural wisdom of the Bible can also be seen in the realm of science. At a time when men thought the earth was flat, the Bible taught that it was a sphere (Isaiah 40:22, 700BC). At a time when men thought the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle, the Bible taught that is was suspended in space (Job 26:7, 2000BC). At about 1500BC the Bible taught that the stars could not be counted (Genesis 15:5); yet, in 150AD an astronomer named Ptolemy taught that there were exactly 1056 stars.5 Today, modern science confirms that the stars are innumerable.

In about 1850AD, the first and second laws of thermodynamics were discovered by modern science. The first law teaches that no new energy is being created or destroyed. The second law teaches that, though the amount of energy in the universe remains constant, the amount of usable energy is running down. Therefore, the universe is winding down. The Bible taught both of these laws thousands of years ago. The Bible states that God is resting from His creation work (Genesis 2:1-3), and that the universe will someday pass away (Mark 13:31; Isaiah 40:31). The Bible does teach, however, that God will make a new heaven and a new earth when the old ones pass away (Revelation 21:1).

There was no such thing as modern science in biblical times. Hence, the information mentioned above demands a source which transcends that of man, a supernatural source.6 H. L. Willmington commented on this subject:

In 1861 the French Academy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one “scientific facts” which supposedly contradicted the Bible. These were used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Today all fifty-one of those “facts” are unacceptable to modern scientists.7

FULFILLED PROPHECIES

The Bible claims repeatedly to be the Word of God. One of the most powerful witnesses to the truth of this claim is the many fulfilled prophecies proclaimed in the Bible. This work has already examined a sample of prophecies fulfilled by Christ. Here, a few more of the many biblical prophecies that have already come to pass will be discussed.

The Bible has made many predictions concerning the future of great nations and cities. The following is a brief discussion of a few of the prophecies fulfilled concerning these cities and nations.

Around 590—570BC, the prophet Ezekiel predicted that the city of Tyre would be destroyed and never be rebuilt, and that it would become a barren rock which fishermen would use to mend their nets (Ezekiel 26:4, 5, 14). Though Tyre was destroyed and rebuilt many times throughout history, it was ultimately devastated in 1291AD by Muslim invaders. Today, all that is left of the ancient site of Tyre is a small fishing community which uses the barren ground to dry their nets.8

In the sixth century BC, Ezekiel also predicted that the city of Sidon would suffer much violence and bloodshed throughout her history, yet remain in existence (Ezekiel 28:23). Though Sidon has been invaded and defeated numerous times throughout her history, the city still exists today.9

In 625BC, the prophet Zephaniah predicted that the city of Ashkelon would someday be destroyed, but that it would eventually be inhabited by the Jews (Zephaniah 2:4, 6). Ashkelon was destroyed in 1270AD by Sultan Bibars. The city remained uninhabited for centuries until the nation of Israel was reestablished in 1948. Now, the Jews have rebuilt and re-inhabited Ashkelon.10

Zephaniah also predicted that the Philistines—a powerful enemy of the Jews throughout much of the Old Testament—would be totally wiped out. Though they continued to prosper for many centuries, they eventually became extinct in 1200AD (Zephaniah 2:5).11

The prophet Obadiah, writing in either 841BC or 586BC, prophesied the extinction of the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau and enemies of the Jews (Obadiah 18). When the Romans devastated the city of Jerusalem in 70AD, they also defeated the remnants of Edom (called the Idumeans at that time). At that time, all traces of the Edomites disappear.12

In 740—680BC, the prophet Isaiah predicted that Egypt would still be a nation in the last days (Isaiah 19:21-22). In spite of the many wars Egypt has encountered throughout her four-thousand year history, this ancient nation remains in existence to this day.13

In 1410BC, Moses predicted that Israel would be scattered among the nations of the world (Deuteronomy 28:64). The prophet Hosea, in 710BC, predicted this dispersion of Israel as well (Hosea 9:17). History records that after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews were scattered throughout the world.14

Both Isaiah and Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would be re-gathered in her land in the last days (Isaiah 11:11-12; Ezekiel 37:21). This happened in 1948AD when the nation of Israel was reestablished. The Jews continue to return to their land to this day.15

God told Abraham that those who cursed Israel would be cursed by God (Genesis 12:3). This prophecy has been fulfilled many times. Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, and Nazi Germany are a few examples of nations or empires that persecuted and oppressed Israel. While the tiny nation of Israel still exists today, Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany have collapsed and are no longer in existence. During the 1930′s and 1940′s, Nazi Germany had slaughtered six-million Jews and its war machine was devastating Europe. By 1948, Nazi Germany was nonexistent and the Jews had control of their homeland—the nation of Israel— for the first time since 586BC.16

Each of these prophecies has been fulfilled to the detail. Many other biblical prophecies have also been fulfilled. It should also be noted that no futuristic prophecy of Scripture has ever been shown to be false. This separates the Bible from false prophets such as Edgar Cayce and Jean Dixon. Their success rate is much lower than the perfect accuracy of the predictions made by the Bible.17 Henry Morris made the following comment:

It seems reasonable to conclude that the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy constitutes a unique and powerful evidence of the divine inspiration of the Bible.18

The evidence provided above for the Bible being God’s Word is threefold. First, Jesus (who is God) taught that the Bible is God’s Word. Second, the Bible contains insights that go beyond mere human wisdom. Third, the Bible made numerous predictions, many of which have been fulfilled. None of these predictions have proven false (though some prophecies have yet to be fulfilled). In short, there are good reasons for believing the Bible is God’s Word. Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible have failed to explain the three factors above.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE

Since the Bible can be shown to be God’s Word, several implications follow. First, since the cosmological argument has shown God to be infinite and perfect, there can be no error in His Word as originally recorded. God can only proclaim truth; otherwise, He would be less than perfect. Therefore, the Bible is wholly true (inerrant). Second, since the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, it is authoritative. God has spoken, and everything must be tested by the truth He has given. Third, whatever is taught in God’s inerrant and authoritative Word should be adhered to by all.

This work has already presented evidence for some of the major tenents of orthodox Christianity (the existence of one God, creation by God, the resurrection of Jesus, and Christ’s deity). Since the evidence indicates the Bible is God’s Word, whatever it teaches must be true. Therefore, other important Christian doctrines (e.g., salvation by grace through faith in Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, the Trinity, and Christ’s future return to earth) can be defended by showing that they are taught in the Bible

Concerning salvation, the Bible teaches that all people are sinners who cannot save themselves (Romans 3:10, 23; 6:23; Matthew 19:25-26). Scripture teaches that man cannot earn his salvation; salvation is a free gift given by God’s grace (unmerited favor) to those who trust (believe) in Jesus for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16-18; 6:35, 47; Romans 6:23). Only through Jesus can man be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

The Bible teaches that Jesus took mankind’s punishment upon Himself by dying on the cross for their sins (Isaiah 53:5-6, 12; Matthew 1:21; Mark 10:45; John 1:29; Romans 5:8-10; Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 21; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 10:10, 14; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 1:7; 2:1-2; Revelation 5:9). The God of the Bible is holy and just; He cannot forgive sin unless it has been paid for in full. The good news is that Jesus (who is fully man and fully God) is the ultimately worthy sacrifice who has paid for the sins of the world through His death on the cross (Revelation 5:1-14). He died as a substitute for all of mankind. Those who accept Jesus as their Savior receive the salvation and forgiveness that He has purchased for them.

One of the most controversial teachings of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity, for this teaching transcends human understanding. This doctrine declares that the one true God eternally exists as three equal Persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). God is one in essence or nature (Mark 12:29; John 10:30), but three in Personhood (Matthew 3:16-17; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).

The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Galatians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:2). However, Jesus (the Son) is also called God and is described in ways that could only apply to God (Isaiah 9:6; Zechariah 14:5; John 1:1, 14; 5:17-18, 22-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-33; 17:5, 24; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:17-18). Jesus is worshipped as God (Matthew 2:11; 28:9; John 9:38). The Holy Spirit is also called God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

Some have speculated that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since they are one God, must also be one Person, but, this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons (Isaiah 48:12-16; Psalm 110:1; Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; John 14:16, 26; 15:26). Before anything was created, the three Persons of the Trinity communicated with each other (Genesis 1:26; 11:7), shared the glory of God (John 17:5), and loved each other (John 17:24). Even while Christ was on earth, He and the Father spoke to one another, thus proving they were not the same Person (Matthew 3:16-17; 26:39; Luke 23:46; John 17:1). When all the data is considered, it is clear that the Bible teaches that there is only one true God, but this God eternally exists as three equal Persons. Hence, the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Bible also teaches that Jesus Christ will someday return to earth in power and glory. After His return, He will rule over the nations for one-thousand years (Matthew 24:29-31; Revelation 11:15; 19:11-16; 20:4-6).

Since the available evidence declares the Bible to be God’s Word, whatever it teaches must be true. Therefore, the biblical teachings concerning salvation, Christ’s substitutionary death, the Trinity, and Christ’s return should be accepted. It is also important to note that since whatever the Bible teaches is true, the morality taught in the Bible is authoritative. If God calls a practice wrong, then it is wrong, regardless of common political sentiment. Though the Bible student must differentiate between absolute moral laws which are universally binding on all men and temporary cultural laws prescribed for a specific people at a specific time, absolute moral laws taught in the Bible should be adhered to by all. The day will come when all must answer to God, at the judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15).

CONCLUSION

The argument of this chapter is threefold. First, Jesus of Nazareth, who is God incarnate, taught that the Bible is God’s Word. Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God. Second, this is confirmed by the supernatural wisdom of the Bible, as well as the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Third, since God has been shown to be infinitely perfect, His Word is totally trustworthy. Therefore, whatever the Bible teaches is true.

Since the Bible teaches that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus as one’s Savior, then Christianity is the one true faith. All religions which deny salvation only through Christ alone are false religions. One’s eternal destiny depends on his response to Christ. It is Jesus who calls out to all mankind, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

ENDNOTES

1 Norman L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1980), 16-17.

2 Pascal, 56-61.

3 Schaeffer, Complete Works vol. 1, 293-304.

4 Pascal, 56-61.

5 H. L. Willmington, That Manuscript From Outer Space (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1974), 99.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 108.

8 McDowell, 270-280.

9 Ibid., 280-281.

10 Ibid., 283-285.

11 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 183.

12 Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 233-234.

13 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 182.

14 Ibid., 186-187.

15 Ibid., 187-188.

16 Ibid., 186.

17 The predictions of Scripture are always clear in their meaning and no prophecy of Scripture has ever been shown to be inaccurate. On the other hand, the prophecies of Edgar Cayce and Jeane Dixon have been shown to be extremely vague and often inaccurate. Specific cases of false prophecies uttered by Cayce and Dixon are documented in Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today’s Religions, 169-174, 181-185. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, one failed prophecy is enough to identify a person as a false prophet. Hence, both Cayce and Dixon are false prophets while, as mentioned above, no prediction of the Bible has been shown to be false.

18 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 198-199.

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

The importance of Christ’s resurrection should not be overlooked. The apostle Paul considered belief in Christ’s resurrection to be necessary for salvation (Romans 10:9). Paul also stated:

. . . and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain . . . and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Paul was quick to point out that if Christ could not raise Himself from the dead, then faith in Him would be worthless. Therefore, Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection really happened, then Christianity is true and Jesus is the only Savior. However, if the resurrection never occurred, then Christianity is just another false religion, promoting a false messiah.

CHRIST’S RESURRECTION WAS BODILY

Before examining the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, the nature of that resurrection must be discussed. Throughout the centuries the Christian Church has recognized that Christ’s resurrection was bodily.1 Despite this fact, many today deny that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a non-Christian cult which denies Christ’s bodily resurrection. Their literature states:

On the third day of his being dead in the grave his immortal Father Jehovah God raised him from the dead, not as a human Son, but as a mighty immortal spirit Son, with all power in heaven and earth under the Most High God.2

Jesus was the first one to rise from the dead. . . This firstborn one from the dead was not raised out of the grave a human creature, but was raised a spirit.3

Unfortunately, the denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ is no longer limited solely to non-Christian cults. Even evangelical scholar Murray Harris has denied that Jesus rose in the body which was crucified.4 To make matters worse, many evangelical scholars, rather than refuting his heresy, have come to Harris’ defense when he was confronted by Christian apologist Norman Geisler.5

If Christ did not rise bodily, then there would be no way to verify the truth of the resurrection. Presumably, His corpse would have been rotting in the tomb when the apostles were proclaiming Him as the risen Savior. Although those who hold to a spiritual resurrection of Christ usually invent an additional miracle through which Christ’s corpse dissappears, it seems more reasonable to conclude that either Jesus rose bodily or His corpse remained in the tomb. Since the New Testament records that the tomb was empty, it implies that the resurrection was bodily. A few passages of Scripture will suffice to show that Christ’s resurrection, according to the apostles, was bodily:

He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying (Matthew 28:6).

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” . . . But He was speaking of the temple of His body (John 2:19, 21).

And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (John 20:26-27).

And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. And while they still could not believe it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” And they gave Him a piece of broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them (Luke 24:36-43).

The apostles were eyewitnesses of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances. Their testimony revealed several important points. First, the tomb was empty. Second, Christ appeared to them on several occasions. Third, they thought He was a spirit. Fourth, Jesus proved to them that He was physical by inviting them to touch His body and by eating with them. Fifth, His pierced side, hands, and feet showed that His resurrection body was the body which was crucified. Therefore, it is clear that the apostles taught that Christ rose bodily. The debate about whether Christ’s resurrection was bodily is usually based upon this passage:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. . . (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

THE SPIRITUAL BODY

Many people misunderstand the phrase “spiritual body.” They mistake this phrase for signifying some type of immaterial spirit. However, this is not the case. In the Greek, the phrase is “soma pneumatikon.” The word soma almost always refers to a physical body. Still, in this passage this physical body is somehow described as being “spiritual” (pneumatikon). But, the spiritual body is contrasted with the natural body. The natural body refers to the physical body before physical death. The Greek words for natural body are “soma psuchikon.” Literally, this phrase means a “soulish body.” The word soul usually carries with it the idea of immateriality, but, in this passage, it cannot. It is referring to the human body before death, and, the human body is of course physical, despite the adjective “soulish.” Therefore, if the “soulish body” is physical, then there should be no difficulty viewing the “spiritual body” as also being physical. The soulish body is sown (buried) at death, but, this same body is raised as a spiritual body; it receives new powers. It is no longer a natural body; it is a supernatural body. The body is changed, but it is still the same body. For, the body that was sown (buried) is the same body that will be raised. Gary Habermas discussed Christ’s spiritual body in the following words:

. . . the Gospels and Paul agree on an important fact: the resurrected Jesus had a new spiritual body. The Gospels never present Jesus walking out of the tomb. . . when the stone is rolled away, Jesus does not walk out the way He does in apocryphal literature. He’s already gone, so He presumably exited through the rock. Later He appears in buildings and then disappears at will. The Gospels clearly say that Jesus was raised in a spiritual body. It was His real body, but it was changed, including new, spiritual qualities.6

Paul is using the term spiritual body to contrast it with the natural body. He is making the point that Christ’s body after the Resurrection (and ours too) has different characteristics to it than it did before. . . But the point is made very clearly that what is being talked about is the same body, the contrast here is not between physical body and spiritual body, but rather between the same body in different states or with different characteristics.7

Walter Martin, the foremost authority on non-Christian cults during his lifetime, also discussed Christ’s spiritual body in his greatest work, Kingdom of the Cults:

However, Christ had a “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:50, 53) in His glorified state, identical in form to His earthly body, but immortal, and thus capable of entering the dimension of earth or heaven with no violation to the laws of either one.8

Therefore, Christ rose in the same body in which He lived and died. However, His body had been changed in the “twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:50-53) so that His mortal body (a body capable of death) was glorified and became immortal (incapable of death). In His spiritual body, He can apparently travel at the speed of thought, unhindered by distance. The Bible teaches that in the first resurrection all believers will receive glorified bodies. Believers’ bodies will be changed into glorified and immortal bodies. The presence of sin will be totally removed from them (1 Corinthians 15:50-53).

Therefore, the apostles claimed that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Since the resurrection occurred in the physical realm it could be verified; it could be proven true or false. In reference to Christ’s resurrection, only four options exist: 1) the resurrection accounts may be legends, 2) the accounts may be lies, 3) the apostles may have been sincere but deceived, or 4) the apostles were telling the truth. The remainder of this chapter will determine, by process of elimination,which of these four options best explains the available evidence.

THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS WERE NOT LEGENDS

The resurrection accounts were not legends. The evidence presented in the last chapter clearly shows that the resurrection accounts predate even the New Testament itself. Legends usually take centuries to evolve.9 But, as chapter twenty-five has shown, the earliest known written resurrection accounts date back to less than twenty years after Christ’s death. These accounts were ancient creeds and hymns of the first generation church (1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Romans 10:9; etc.). There is simply no way that a resurrection legend could receive universal acceptance (in order to become a hymn or creed) in the church while the apostles themselves led the church. If the resurrection account was merely a legend, the apostles would have refuted it. If the apostles chose not to refute a fictitious resurrection story, then they would have purposely perpetrated a falsehood. In that case, however, the resurrection accounts would not be legends; instead, the apostles would be liars.

The apostles knew Jesus personally. They were eyewitnesses of the events of His life and the things He taught. The apostles also led the early church. They were the authoritative witnesses to the facts concerning Christian doctrine, history, and practice. No legend could gain wide acceptance in the first generation church with the apostles in positions of authority. Since it can be shown that the resurrection accounts were not legends, some have concluded that the apostles were liars.

THE APOSTLES WERE NOT LIARS

Skeptics sometimes accuse the apostles of fabricating the resurrection accounts. One theory suggests that the apostles stole the body of Jesus from the tomb.10 In fact, this was the first attempted refutation of Christ’s resurrection (Matthew 28:11-15).

Though it would be ludicrous to suggest that the apostles overpowered the Roman soldiers who guarded Jesus’ tomb, this point will not be argued here. For many skeptics reject the apostolic witness concerning the guards at the tomb. Apart from the debate over whether or not the tomb was guarded, it can still be shown that the apostles were not liars. The apostles claimed that they saw Jesus risen from the dead, and, they were willing to suffer and die for for their testimony. It is clearly against human nature for men to die for what they know to be a hoax.

Death by martyrdom is probably a more accurate way to determine if someone is telling the truth than even modern lie-detector tests. William Lane Craig describes the horrible sufferings that the first generation Christians endured for their faith:

One of the most popular arguments against this theory is the obvious sincerity of the disciples as attested by their suffering and death . . . Writing seventy years after Jesus’ death, Tacitus narrates Nero’s persecution about thirty years after Christ, how the Christians were clothed with the skins of wild beasts and thrown to the dogs, how others were smeared with pitch and used as human torches to illuminate the night while Nero rode about Rome in the dress of a charioteer, viewing the spectacle. The testimonies of Suetonius and Juvenal confirm the fact that within thirty-one years after Jesus’ death, Christians were dying for their faith. From the writings of Pliny the Younger, Martial, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, it is clear that believers were voluntarily submitting to torture and death rather than renounce their religion. This suffering is abundantly attested in Christian writings as well.11

Fox’s Book of Martyrs lists the deaths of eight of the twelve original apostles. James (John’s brother) was put to death with the sword by order of Herod Agrippa I. The apostle Philip was crucified. Matthew (who wrote one of the Gospels) was beaten to death with an axe-shaped weapon. Andrew (Peter’s brother) was crucified on an X—shaped cross. Peter (author of two epistles) was crucified upside down by order of Nero. Bartholomew was crucified. Thomas was killed when a spear was thrust through him. Simon the Zealot was crucified.12

Fox’s Book of Martyrs also discusses the deaths of other New Testament authors. James (a half-brother of Christ and author of the epistle bearing his name) was beaten and stoned to death. Jude (another half-brother of Jesus and author of the epistle bearing his name) was crucified. Mark (author of the Gospel bearing his name) was dragged to pieces in Alexandria. Paul (who wrote thirteen or fourteen epistles) was beheaded in Rome. Luke (who wrote the Gospel named after him and Acts) was hanged on an olive tree.13

The apostles claimed to have seen Christ risen from the dead. They were willing to suffer and die for this claim. It is against human nature for one to die for what one knows to be a lie. Therefore, the apostles did not steal the body. They were not lying. They were sincere. They believed that they had really seen the resurrected Lord. Hence, they were either sincere but deceived, or they were telling the truth.

THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DECEIVED

Most of today’s New Testament scholars recognize that the apostles were sincere in their belief that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. Therefore, in an attempt to explain away the resurrection, some of these scholars accept one of several theories devised to explain how the apostles were decieved into thinking they had seen the risen Lord. It is interesting to note that these theories have all been refuted by other skeptics.14

The swoon theory suggests that Christ never actually died on the cross. Instead, He only passed out but was mistaken for dead. Christ then, according to this view, revived in the tomb. When He visited the apostles, they mistakenly proclaimed Him as risen from the dead.15 The swoon theory is easily refuted. The apostle John recorded in his Gospel strong evidence for Christ’s death on the cross:

The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for the Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came, and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water (John 19:31-34).

Death by crucifixion was a horrible ordeal. To prolong the sufferings of the crucified person, a wooden block was placed under the feet to give him leverage to straighten up in order to breathe. When the Jewish authorities wanted to quicken the deaths of the victims so that they would not be on the cross during their feast days, they would have the Roman soldiers break the legs of the crucified victims. Being unable to straighten up in order to breathe, the victim would quickly die.16

In Christ’s case, the Roman soldier saw that He was already dead. Still, being a good soldier who was conscientious about his job, he confirmed his view that Christ was dead by thrusting his spear into Christ’s side. In this way, if the soldier was mistaken and Christ was actually alive, the spear wound would be fatal. The soldier, an expert in mortal combat, was surely trained in how to deliver a death blow to an enemy. Therefore, if Christ had been alive, the piercing of His side would have certainly killed Him.

Another detail in this passage provides evidence that Christ did in fact die. The apostle John reported a flow of “blood and water” coming from Christ’s side as a result of the spear wound. Today, medical science has shown that this phenomenon proves that Christ was dead prior to the spear wound.17 The flow of “blood and water” could only occur if the wound was inflicted upon a corpse. It should also be noted that this medical knowledge was unknown in John’s day. Therefore, he had no knowledge that his reporting of this detail was irrefutable proof of death. Hence, he could not have fabricated this event in an attempt to prove Christ’s death.18

The evidence, therefore, clearly indicates that Jesus died on the cross. Still, even if He did survive the cross, imminent death would follow due to His injuries from the scourging and crucifixion. Furthermore, even if He survived these injuries, there is no way in His battered condition He would have been able to convince His disciples that He had conquered death for all mankind.19 The evidence declares that Jesus did die.

Some skeptics have proposed the wrong tomb theory. This view holds that everyone went to the wrong tomb and thus proclaimed Christ as risen.20 However, this theory also has many problems. It offers no explanation for the apostles’ claim to have seen the risen Christ on several occasions, and the apostles’ willingness to die for their testimony. Also, the Jewish religious authorities would have searched every tomb in the Jerusalem area in an attempt to produce the rotting corpse of Christ. They had both the means and the desire to do so. Had they produced the corpse, Christianity would have been dealt a death blow while still in its infancy. The fact that the Jews did not produce the corpse of Christ is itself evidence of the empty tomb.21 Again, any claim that the disciples stole the body offers no explanation as to how they could have been willing to die for what they knew to be a hoax.

Other skeptics have proposed the hallucination theory. This theory states that the apostles did not really see the resurrected Christ; instead, they only hallucinated and thought they saw the risen Lord.22 However, psychologists say that hallucinations occur inside a person’s mind. It is therefore impossible for two people—not to mention 500—to have had the same hallucination at the same time. Since many of the reported appearances of the risen Christ were to groups of people, the hallucination theory fails to explain the resurrection accounts.23

Another attempt to explain away the resurrection is the hypnotic theory. This highly speculative view suggests that the witnesses of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances were all hypnotized. They did not actually see the risen Lord. Today, modern hypnotists deny this possibility.24 Christian scholar Gary Habermas sums up the failure of skeptics to explain away the resurrection of Christ:

One interesting illustration of this failure of the naturalistic theories is that they were disproven by the nineteenth-century older liberals themselves, by whom these views were popularized. These scholars refuted each other’s theories, leaving no viable naturalistic hypotheses. For instance, Albert Schweitzer dismissed Reimaru’s fraud theory and listed no proponents of this view since 1768. David Strauss delivered the historical death blow to the swoon theory held by Karl Venturini, Heinrich Paulus, and others. On the other hand, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Paulus pointed out errors in Strauss’s hallucination theory. The major decimation of the hallucination theory, however, came at the hands of Theodor Keim. Otto Pfleiderer was critical of the legendary or mythological theory, even admitting that it did not explain Jesus’ resurrection. By these critiques such scholars pointed out that each of these theories was disproven by the historical facts.25

CONCLUSION: THE APOSTLES WERE TELLING THE TRUTH

The failure of these theories shows that the apostles told the truth. Jesus did rise from the dead. Four facts of history add further support to the case for the resurrection of Christ from the dead. First, the apostles, who were devout Jews, changed the sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday in honor of the Lord’s resurrection. Only a miracle such as the resurrection (which occurred on a Sunday) would lead them to change their sacred day of rest (a fifteen-hundred-year-old religious tradition).26 Second, the Jewish religious leaders during the time of Christ remained silent as far as written records are concerned. Accusing the apostles of stealing the body was a failure. The punishment for Roman guards sleeping on post was death.27 Thus, it is unlikely that well-trained Roman guards would allow a small group of Galilean fishermen to overpower them. The Jewish religious leaders, seeing the failure of their alternative explanation of the resurrection, chose not to record it in writing. The silence of the Jews provides strong evidence for the fact of the empty tomb. The Jewish religious leaders had every reason to refute the resurrection. They did not; therefore, it is safe to conclude that they could not. Third, despite the fact that the resurrection was being proclaimed right in Jerusalem (near the tomb of Christ), the new church grew rapidly. All that had to be done to disprove Christianity (which was the intention of the Jewish religious leaders) was to produce the rotting corpse of Christ. Yet, the church grew rapidly. The only explanation for this is that no one could refute the apostolic testimony to the resurrection of Christ.28 Last, the conversion of both James and the apostle Paul can only be adequately understood as a direct consequence of the resurrection.29 James was one of the half-brothers of Jesus. He was very skeptical about His brother’s claim to be the Jewish Messiah (John 7:1-5). Anything short of seeing His brother risen from the dead would fail to explain his dramatic conversion and subsequent rise to leadership in the early church (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 15:13-21; Galatians 1:18-19; 2:9). Paul was originally a Pharisee and apparently the leading enemy of the church (Philippians 3:4-6; Acts 8:1-3). If one rejects the post-resurrection appearance of Christ to him on the road to Damascus, then the reason for his conversion is a mystery (Acts 9:1-9).

The evidence for Christ’s resurrection is overwhelming. The empty tomb stands as a monument to Christ’s victory over death, a monument that, though attacked throughout the ages, remains standing and unmoved. The empty tomb is not a silent witness: the echoing of the angel’s voice can still be heard coming from it, “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying” (Matthew 28:6).

ENDNOTES

1 Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, 51.

2 Let God Be True (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1946), 43.

3 Ibid., 272.

4 Murray Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmanns, 1985), 126.

5 Norman L. Geisler, In Defense of the Resurrection (Charlotte: Quest Publications, 1991), 8-13.

6 Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1987), 58.

7 Ibid., 95.

8 Martin Kingdom of the Cults, 86.

9 Craig, 197.

10 Ibid., 179-180.

11 Ibid., 175-176.

12 John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Springdale: Whitaker House, 1981), 6-13.

13 Ibid.

14 Habermas and Flew, 20-21.

15 Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, 54-58.

16 Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud (Wayne: Banbury Books, 1981), 178-179.

17 Ibid., 184.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 McDowell, 255.

21 Ibid.

22 Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus, 26-28.

23 McDowell, 249.

24 Morris, Many Infallible Proofs, 94.

25 Habermas and Flew, 20-21.

26 Ibid., 22.

27 McDowell, 242.

28 Craig,178, 190.

29 Ibid., 195-196.

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

This chapter will argue that the Old Testament is a compilation of reliable historical writings. The divine authorship of the Old and New Testaments will not be argued for until chapter twenty-eight. The goal of this chapter is to show that the Old Testament is not a book of religious myths. It records historically accurate data; therefore, it should be considered historically reliable.

Since the data concerning Old Testament reliability is so extensive, this chapter will necessarily be selective. Evidence will be provided for only eight (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Isaiah, and Daniel) of the thirty-nine Old Testament books. However, since liberal scholars attack the reliability of these eight books more aggressively than the other Old Testament books, a strong case for the reliability of these eight books will go a long way to proving the reliability of the entire Old Testament. Most of the information in this chapter is derived from Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.2

THE OLD TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

The Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew and Aramaic.3 It consists of thirty-nine separate books written at different times and places between 2000BC and 400BC.4 The three main extant Old Testament manuscripts are the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint.5

The Masoretic Text is currently considered the standard Hebrew text.6 It dates back to about 1010AD.7 It contains the entire Old Testament.8 Despite its late date, it is considered the purest Hebrew text. No recent manuscript finds have brought suspicion to the Masoretic text.9 Due to the strict copying techniques of the Masoretes, they have preserved a Hebrew text which essentially duplicates the authoritative texts of Christ’s time.10

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to approximately 150-100BC.11 The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament.12 These scrolls were found in 1947 in various caves along the northwest coast of the Dead Sea.13 The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from every Old Testament book except Esther.14

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.15 The Septuagint dates from 250-150BC.16 When the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint are compared, there is essential agreement between them. The few areas of disagreement do not effect the doctrines contained in the Old Testament; the disagreements are mainly copyist errors and variations in spelling.17

LOWER, HIGHER, AND FORM CRITICISM

Lower criticism is the science of discovering the original text on the basis of imperfect copies.18 This can only be done by comparing the existing copies of the passage in question. Lower criticism is essential in the task of producing accurate translations of the Old (and New) Testaments.

Higher criticism, on the other hand, deals with ascertaining the authorship, date, and integrity of each biblical book.19 Higher criticism has been abused by liberal scholars who refuse to accept the evidence for the traditional Jewish and Christian view concerning the authorship, date, and integrity of the books of the Bible. This is due, in part, to the common antisupernaturalistic bias held by liberal scholars.20 This bias rejects the possibility of revelation from God, predictive prophecies, and miracles.

Form criticism seeks to find the oral traditions that supposedly lie behind the written documents.21 This view is highly subjective; it is often dependent upon the imagination of the scholar.

THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

The documentary hypothesis is the theory that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) was a compilation of different written documents composed by different authors at different places and at different times.22 The traditional view of Moses being the author of the Pentateuch around 1450BC is rejected. The documentary hypothesis holds to much later dates for the writing of the Pentateuch.23

Before the eighteenth century, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was not questioned. However, the rise of deism (the belief in a non-miracle working God) led to a more skeptical approach to the Bible.24 The process which led to the documentary hypothesis began in 1753 with the speculation of a French physician named Jean Astruc.25 He was puzzled by the fact that God was called “Elohim” in the first chapter of Genesis, while He was primarily referred to as “Jehovah” (or Yahweh) in the second chapter.26 He concluded that these different names for God pointed to different written sources. The sources became known as “Elohim” and “Jehovah.”27

In the 1780′s, Johann Gottfried Eichorn applied the distinction between the J (Jehovah) document and the E (Elohim) document throughout most of the Pentateuch.28 In 1806, Wilhelm M. L. DeWette introduced the view that the entire Pentateuch was written no earlier than the reign of King David (around 1000BC).29 DeWette also reasoned that the book of Deuteronomy (which later became known as the “D” document) was written at the start of King Josiah’s reformation to unify the worship of the Jews in 621BC.30

In 1853, Hermann Hupfeld divided the E document into E1 and E2. The E1 document later became known as “P” (the priestly code).31 In 1869, Abraham Kuener put the four supposed documents in what later became the standard JEDP order.32

In 1878, Julius Wellhausen supported this JEDP order with the evolutionary view of religion. This view teaches that man’s first religion was animism (the belief that everything in nature has a life force or soul). Animism evolved into polytheism (the belief in many gods). Polytheism led to monalatry (the worshiping one god as supreme over all other gods). Finally, in the evolutionary view of religion, monalatry gave rise to monotheism (the belief in one God).33

The gradual development of the documentary hypothesis was completed in Wellhausen’s thought. According to Wellhausen, the J document was written in 850BC, while the E document was produced in 750BC. Deuteronomy was composed during King Josiah’s reform in 621BC. The Priestly code was considered to be written in various stages between 570BC and 530BC.34 This was a great departure from the traditional view which, as stated above, held that Moses was the author of all five books (around 1450BC).

REFUTATION OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

The documentary hypothesis is no longer as popular as it once was. Twentieth century scholarship has repudiated this view. Still, rather than returning to the traditional view of Mosaic authorship, twentieth century scholars have tended towards even more speculation. Several more documents have been suggested.35

Any evidence for the unity of the Pentateuch is explained away by asserting that a hypothetical editor supposedly put several documents together.36 It can be said of liberal scholars that they will not allow any evidence to falsify their subjective reasonings. They speculate that two creation accounts (Genesis 1; 2) must mean two different written sources. By doing this, they reject the abundant evidence showing that ancient Semitic writers often utilized a style which made use of repetition in their literature. Somehow, twentieth century liberal scholars assume they can scientifically reconstruct the text thousands of years after it was written. They even believe their speculations should hold more weight than the traditional view of the Jews who were themselves much closer to the original documents.37

The modern liberal scholars are guilty of circular reasoning. In their attempt to prove that the Bible is merely a human book, they assume that revelation from God is impossible.38 In spite of the fact that much of ancient pagan history has been shown to be unreliable, liberal scholars assume that these pagan historical writings are always right when they differ from the biblical account39 Meanwhile, again and again the Bible has been proven to be historically reliable.40 Another weak assumption is their view that the Hebrews could use only one name for God. History reveals that ancient empires such as Babylon, Ugarit, Egypt, and Greece all had several names for their primary deity.41 Therefore, there is no justification for speculating the existence of different authors and multiple documents merely because a different name for God (Elohim or Jehovah) is being used.

The evolutionary assumption that the Hebrew religion had evolved into monotheism is also called into question. Israel, after all, was the only nation among its ancient neighbors to have a true monotheistic faith. Israel is the exception rather than the rule. Even if one could prove that the religions of Israel’s neighbors evolved towards monotheism, Israel’s history is that of a nation that began with monotheism.42

Modern liberal scholars are notorious for taking passages out of context in order to “prove” that the Bible contains contradictions. Whenever a conservative scholar produces a possible reconciliation of the passages in question, the solution is automatically rejected by liberal scholarship.43 Apparently, because of the common liberal bias against anything supernatural, liberal scholars will accept no argument for the traditional view of the Pentateuch.

In short, the documentary hypothesis and its updated versions do not stand on a solid foundation. They are based upon an unjustified bias against the supernatural; they also resort to fanciful speculation. The concept of the JEDP documents was created by the imaginations of liberal scholars. There is no evidence whatsoever that these documents ever existed. This is not to say that Moses did not draw upon information from written sources which predated him, but, if this was the case, objective evidence must be produced for verification. Uncontrolled subjective speculation is not true scholarship; it is the antithesis of scholarship.

EVIDENCES FOR THE MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH

Merely pointing out the inadequacies of the documentary hypothesis does not prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch around 1450BC. Therefore, positive evidences for Mosaic authorship must be presented.

First, the entire Pentateuch displays a unity of arrangement. Even the documentarians concede this point by inventing a hypothetical editor to explain the unity of the Pentateuch.44 This unity of arrangement strongly implies that the Pentateuch had only one author.

Second, both the Old and New Testaments call Moses the author of the Pentateuch (Joshua 8:31; 1 Kings 2:3; Daniel 9:11; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:28; John 5:46-47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5). Even the Pentateuch itself declares Moses to be its author (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1-2; Deuteronomy 31:9).45

Third, eyewitness details in the Pentateuch indicate the author was a participant in the events he was describing. The author at times is so precise in his details that he lists the exact number of fountains (twelve) and palm trees (seventy) in Exodus 15:27.46 The author even describes the appearance and taste of the manna from heaven for future generations (Numbers 11:7-8).47 These precise details make it unlikely that the author was other than an eyewitness of the events he recorded.

Fourth, the author of the Pentateuch was well acquainted with the geography and language of Egypt. He was familiar with Egyptian names and uses Egyptian figures of speech. There is a greater percentage of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Bible. This seems to indicate that the author had lived in Egypt and was most likely educated there as well. Moses was born, raised, and educated in Egypt. It is also interesting to note that the author does not attempt to explain these uniquely Egyptian factors. This probably indicates that his original readers were also familiar with the Egyptian culture, and, this is exactly the case with the Israelites that Moses led out of Egypt.48

Fifth, the author of the Pentateuch, although familiar with Egypt, shows himself to be unfamiliar with the land of Canaan.49 This is consistent with Moses. After leaving Egypt, he wandered through the wilderness of Sinai, but did not enter Canaan (the promised land). The author of the Pentateuch, though he describes with great detail the geography and vegetation of Egypt and Sinai, treats the land of Canaan as a place virtually uknown to him or his people.50 Therefore, the traditional view of Mosaic authorship is much more plausible than the documentary hypothesis.

Sixth, the setting of Exodus through Numbers is that of a desert atmosphere point of view.51 Even the laws concerning sanitation apply to a desert lifestyle (Deuteronomy 23:12-13).52 This would not be the case if the author or authors lived an agricultural lifestyle in their own land for nearly a thousand years (which is what the documentary hypothesis teaches).53 Even the tabernacle (a portable tent that was the Jewish place of worship) implies a nomadic lifestyle of the worshipers.54

Seventh, Moses was qualified to be the author of the Pentateuch. He was educated in Egypt, grew up there, and spent much of his later life in the Sinai desert (Acts 7:22).55

Eighth, the customs recorded in the Pentateuch were genuine second millennium BC customs.56 This would not be expected if the Pentateuch was written much later. This point is even stronger when it is realized that many of these customs were not continued on into the first millennium BC. Some of these ancient customs were the legal bearing of children through maidservants, the legality of oral deathbed wills, the possessing of household idols in order to claim inheritence rights, and the way real estate transactions were practiced.57

Ninth, the Ras Shamra literature dates back to approximately 1400BC.58 Therefore, writing existed during Moses’ time. Hence, it cannot be argued that written languages had not developed to the degree of the Pentateuch at such an early date, which is what the documentary hypothesis teaches.

Tenth, archaeological finds have confirmed much of the history and customs reported in the Pentateuch, whereas no archaeological find has refuted the history recorded in the Bible.59 Examples of this are the excavations of the cities of Bethel, Schechem, and Ur.60 Archaeology has shown that these cities were inhabited as early as 2,000BC (the time of Abraham).61 This had been denied by liberal scholars until archaeology proved them wrong and the Pentateuch right. The Hittite Legal Code, which dates back to about 1300BC, is another example. It was discovered by archaeologists between 1906 and 1912. It confirms the ancient procedure used by Abraham and several Hittites while engaging in a real estate transaction in Genesis 23.62 Another example of archaeological confirmation of the historical reliability of the Pentateuch deals with the use of camels. Genesis records that Abraham owned camels. However, since no nonbiblical references to domesticated camels had been found, liberal scholars assumed the Pentateuch had to have been written at a much later date. However, since 1950, several archaeological findings have shown that the domestication of camels in the middle east occurred as early as 2,000BC.63

Eleventh, all the biblical evidence shows that the Jewish Faith was originally monotheistic, and that it later became idolatrous and polytheistic.64 This runs counter to the evolutionary view of religion. In fact, there is no historical evidence that any nation’s religion ever “evolved” into a genuine monotheistic faith. A true monotheistic faith is unique to the Jewish religion and its offshoots (Christianity, Islam, and their offshoots).65

Twelfth, liberal objections that the religious customs, writings, and legal code of the Jews were too advanced for the traditional fifteenth century BC date of composition have been shown to be unwarranted. Recent studies of ancient religions show that “primitive” peoples had technical sacrificial language.66 Also, the Code of Hammurabi (1800BC) is a legal code which is very similar in its sophistication to the Law of Moses.67 The census lists found in the ancient Semitic world (Mari, Ugarit, and Alalakh) between 2000 and 1500BC have much in common with the census lists found in the Book of Numbers.68 Finally, Deuteronomy follows the same basic format as the Hittite suzerainty treaties (latter half of the second millennium BC), a treaty agreed upon by a king and his people.69 Therefore, the Pentateuch appears to be a fifteenth century BC document, and not a much later writing.

Thirteenth, ancient legends of creation and the worldwide flood are universal among primitive peoples. These legends appear to perversions of the true biblical account.70 An example of this would be a comparison of the ancient Babylonian flood account (the Gilgames Epic) and the Genesis flood account. Whereas the boat in the Babylonian account would never float due to its dimensions, the ark’s dimensions as listed in Genesis describe a vessel that would be virtually impossible to capsize.71

Fourteenth, the Jews accepted the Law as Mosaic during King Josiah’s reform in 621BC. It is therefore hard to believe that a large portion of the Pentateuch had just been written. The Jews of that day could not have been so naive. It seems more likely that they had good reasons to believe the documents they had were copies of the ancient writings of Moses and not recent creations.72

Fifteenth, Moses had a good reason for using different names for the one true God. He used different names for God when dealing with different contexts. He referred to God as “Elohim” when discussing His act of creation or His infinite power. Moses seems to have called God “Jehovah” (Yahweh) when speaking of God in terms of His covenant relationship with His elect.73 It is therefore unreasonable to assume that the utilization of various names for God requires more than one author. In fact, compound names such as Yahweh-Elohim are often used to refer to God. Yahweh-Elohim occurs eleven times in the second chapter of Genesis. It is ludicrous to assume that one compound name for God is the work of two authors writing at different times.74

Finally, Moses also had good reasons for varying his diction and style. Good authors commonly vary their text to prevent monotony; Moses would have done the same.75 Moses would also have to vary his style due to the wide range of his subject material (genealogies, biographies, historical accounts, religious instruction, moral legislation, etc.).76 The varying of the diction and style of the Pentateuch is therefore no evidence for multiple authors. Even parallel accounts (such as the two creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2) were common by one author in ancient Semetic literature; it was often used as a type of poetic style.77

When all the above factors are taken together, the conclusion becomes obvious. There are extremely good reasons for accepting the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch between 1450 and 1410BC. There is absolutely no evidence for multiple authors of the Pentateuch (other than the case of Moses’ obituary in Deuteronomy 34 which was probably penned by Joshua). Though Moses did apparently refer to written documents which predate him (especially while compiling Genesis), all the evidence favors the early traditional date for the Pentateuch, and not the later dates given by liberal scholars. The evidence points to Mosaic authorship. The liberal view is therefore based upon a bias against the supernatural; it is not based upon a scholarly consideration of the evidence.

JOSHUA AND THE CONQUEST OF THE PROMISED LAND

Liberal scholars of the twentieth century have denied the reliability of the biblical account of the conquest of the promised land found in the Book of Joshua. However, in 1887AD the Tell el-Amarna tablets were found. They consisted of ancient writings on clay tablets.78 These tablets contain correspondence between Canaanite kings and the Egyptian Pharoah during a troublesome time. The Canaanite kings were requesting assistance from the Pharoah due to constant invasions by nomadic peoples called the “Habiru.” Many scholars believe that the Habiru invaders, or at least many of them, were in fact the Hebrews of Joshua’s army.79 Many of the reports in the Tell el-Amarna tablets confirm specific details as related in Joshua’s account of the conquest.80

Any descrepencies between the tablets and Joshua’s account can be explained by the fact that though all Jews were Hebrews (referred to as Habiru in the tablets), not all Hebrews were Jews. For Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, was himself a Hebrew (Genesis 14:13). Therefore, the Jews were probably not the only Hebrews invading the land of Canaan during the life of Joshua.81

In short, the evidence seems to indicate that there is enough agreement between the Tell el-Amarna tablets and the Book of Joshua to conclude that these tablets provide ancient secular confirmation for the Israelite conquest of the promised land (Canaan).82 The strength of this conclusion is in no way lessened by the fact that the Habiru invaders of the tablets cannot in every case be equated with Joshua’s army.

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

Liberal scholars have rejected the traditional view that Isaiah wrote the Book of Isaiah between 740 and 680BC. In an attempt to explain away the supernatural fulfillment of predictive prophecies, these scholars have concluded that there were actually two authors who wrote Isaiah. This is called the “Deutero-Isaiah Theory.”83 They argue that one author wrote the first thirty-nine chapters, while a different author wrote the last twenty-seven chapters.84 The second author is assumed to have lived in Babylon after the Babylonian Empire had taken the Jews captive in 586BC. If the book is merely a human book (as liberal scholars claim), then, since the last twenty-seven chapters speak of the Babylonian captivity, it must be dated after that event occurred.

Several things can be noted to refute the Deutero-Isaiah theory. First, the entire book of Isaiah exhibits a similar writing style. In fact, conservative scholars have located over forty sentences or phrases that exist in both halves of Isaiah.85 One would not expect this if there were more than one author. Second, the author is familiar with the Palestine area; he is not familiar with Babylon.86 However, if the second half of Isaiah was written by a Jew living in Babylon, this would not be the case. Third, Jesus apparently believed that Isaiah wrote both halves of the Book of Isaiah. In one New Testament passage, He quoted from both Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6 and referred to Isaiah as the author of both (John 12:37-41).87 Fourth, a prediction of the Medo-Persian overthrow of the Babylonian Empire is mentioned in the first half of Isaiah (Isaiah 13:17-19). This Medo-Persian conquest occurred in 538BC. Even liberal scholars admit that this section of Isaiah was written before the Babylonian captivity (586BC).88 If the author could predict the future in the first thirty-nine chapters, he could certainly do the same in the last twenty-seven chapters.

There is no good reason to reject the traditional date and authorship of Isaiah; only a bias against the supernatural will cause a scholar to reject the traditional view despite the evidence in its favor. Isaiah chapter 53 is a case in point. It is probably Isaiah’s most famous prophecy. In this chapter, Isaiah predicts that the Jewish Messiah would suffer for the iniquities of His people. Since this did not occur until 30AD, there is no way for scholars to date any portion of the Book of Isaiah this late.89 Therefore, no matter how late Isaiah is dated, the fulfillment of predictive prohecies must be admitted. Hence, the liberal bias against the supernatural is without justification.

THE BOOK OF DANIEL

The traditional view concerning the Book of Daniel is that Daniel wrote it between 590 and 530BC.90 Daniel lived under both the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian rule over Judah.

The liberal view teaches that the Book of Daniel was written around 165BC to encourage the Jews in Palestine to resist the evil ruler Antiochus Epiphanes.91 This is due to the fact that Daniel predicts the reign of this vile man. And, as mentioned throughout this chapter, liberal scholars reject the fulfillment of predictive prophecies. Their world view forces them to date the Book of Daniel after the events occurred. Hence, they assume the late date.92

There is much evidence for the traditional date of Daniel. First, Daniel uses early Aramaic which is consistent with the sixth century BC date of composition, rather than a second century BC date.93 Second, the three Greek words found in Daniel do not prove a late date (the Greeks did not takeover the Palestine area until 330BC). The three Greek words are names of musical instruments, which could easily have been known and used in Palestine and Babylon long before the Greeks conquered those regions.94

Third, Daniel’s theology, contrary to liberal speculation, was not too advanced for such an early date as the sixth century BC. His teaching concerning angels, the end-time resurrection, and the Kingdom of God can also be found in other Old Testament books which predate the sixth century BC.95

Fourth, there is strong archaeological confirmation of some of the historical characters found in the Book of Daniel. King Belshazzar was thought to be unhistorical by liberal critics. Secular history records Nabonidus as the last king of the Babylonian Empire. However, later discoveries of cuneiform tablets revealed that Nabonidus shared his reign with his son Belshazzar.96 Liberal scholars also rejected the historicity of Darius the Mede, but recent scholarship has identified Darius the Mede with an ancient govenor of Babylon named Gubaru. It has also been shown that Darius was probably not a personal name; rather, it was a title of royalty (such as Caesar was for the Romans).97

Fifth, several of Daniel’s predictions were fulfilled after 165BC.98 Therefore, there is no reason to date the Book of Daniel around that time. Daniel’s prophecies of the four world kingdoms (Daniel 2, 7) predicted that the Medo-Persians would overthrow the Babylonians (this occurred in 538BC). Daniel foretold the Greek conquest of the Medo-Persian Empire (330BC). But, Daniel also prophesied the Roman conquest of Palestine, which occurred in 63BC. This is obviously much later than even the most liberal dating of Daniel (165BC). Hence, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that Daniel contains predictive prophecies that have been fulfilled.99

Some of Daniel’s most amazing prophecies are Messianic. Daniel predicted that the Messiah would be executed 483 years after the order to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem was issued (Daniel 9:24-27). This would place the death of the Jewish Messiah at about 30AD.100 Daniel also stated that the death of the Messiah would be followed by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (which occurred in 70AD).101

No matter how one tries, there is no way to remove the supernatural elements from the Book of Daniel. Even if a person accepts the liberal dating of the book of Daniel (165BC), it is still evident that Daniel predicted the future. He predicted future events that did not occur until after 165BC. Therefore, there is no reason to attempt to date Daniel after the events he predicts, for even the late date for the composition of Daniel must admit the fulfillment of predictive prophecies. Since even the liberal 165BC date would have to admit major fulfillments of prophecies, the evidence supports the traditional date (590-530BC) for the Book of Daniel.

CONCLUSION

The Old Testament has been shown to be historically reliable. Many times archaeology has confirmed the Old testament account. Not once has an archaeological find refuted the history recorded in the Bible.102 The only reason to reject the historical reliability of the Old Testament is an a priori bias against the possibility of God revealing Himself through propositional form, and, as has been shown, this bias is unwarranted.

ENDNOTES

1 Geisler, Apologetics, 285-377.

2 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), entire book.

3 Ibid., 15.

4 Ibid., 19.

5 Ibid., 37-45.

6 Ibid., 44.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., 42.

10 Ibid., 66.

11 Ibid., 38.

12 McDowell, 57-58.

13 Archer, 37.

14 Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 206.

15 Archer, 45.

16 Ibid.

17 McDowell, 58.

18 Archer, 55.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., 109-110.

21 Ibid., 97-98.

22 Ibid., 83-84.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., 83.

25 Ibid., 84.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid., 85.

31 Ibid., 87-88.

32 Ibid., 89.

33 Ibid., 89-90, 148-150.

34 Ibid., 91-92.

35 Ibid., 94.

36 Ibid., 110.

37 Ibid., 112.

38 Ibid., 109.

39 Ibid., 110-111.

40 Ibid., 111.

41 Ibid., 110.

42 Ibid., 111.

43 Ibid., 111-112.

44 Ibid., 121-122.

45 Ibid., 113-114.

46 Ibid., 115.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., 115-119.

49 Ibid., 119-120.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid., 120.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid., 114-115, 122-123.

56 Ibid., 120.

57 Ibid., 164.

58 Ibid., 170, 172.

59 Ibid., 170-182.

60 Ibid., 173-174.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid., 176-177.

63 Ibid., 177.

64 Ibid., 147-169.

65 Ibid., 149.

66 Ibid., 179.

67 Ibid., 177.

68 Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1962), 115.

69 Archer, 259-260.

70 John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 129-133.

71 Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 181.

72 Archer, 259-268.

73 Ibid., 124-129.

74 Ibid., 126.

75 Ibid., 130.

76 Ibid., 129.

77 Ibid., 132-135, 138.

78 Ibid., 271.

79 Ibid., 276.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid., 277.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid., 336-338.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid., 352.

86 Ibid., 357.

87 Ibid., 356.

88 Ibid., 357.

89 Ibid., 355.

90 Ibid., 387.

91 Ibid., 388.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid., 398-401.

94 Ibid., 395.

95 Ibid., 403.

96 Ibid., 390-392.

97 Ibid., 393-394.

98 Ibid., 403-408.

99 Ibid., 407.

100 Ibid., 409.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid., 171.

by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved

Establishing the reliability of the New Testament is vital to Christian apologetics. Christianity is a religion with deep historical roots. For example, if Jesus did not rise from the dead (an historical event), then the Christian Faith cannot save (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). If He did not die on the cross for the sins of mankind (an historical event), then Christianity offers no hope (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18). Proving the New Testament can be trusted will go a long way to establishing Christianity as the one true faith.

This chapter will attempt to show that the New Testament accounts were written by eyewitnesses who knew Christ, or persons who knew the eyewitnesses. Evidence will be provided to show that the accounts of Christ’s bodily resurrection and His claims to deity were not legends invented decades after Christ’s death; rather, they were eyewitness accounts. This chapter will not deal with defending the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God; that topic will be examined in chapter twenty-eight. The purpose of this chapter is to merely show that the New Testament documents are historically reliable.

MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Many historical scholars believe that one cannot know the true Jesus of history since no one no has the original writings of those who knew Him. Only copies of the originals are in existence today. Ironically, these historical scholars will often quote from Plato, as well as other ancient writers, as if they can know with certainty what Plato originally wrote. This clearly unveils a double standard. Ancient secular writings can be trusted based on late copies, but the New Testament cannot be trusted since the original manuscripts are missing.

The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing in existence today. There exist today over 24,000 copies (5,000 of them in the original Greek language) of the New Testament (either in whole or in part).1 This should be compared with the fact that only 7 copies presently exist of Plato’s Tetralogies.2 Homer’s Iliad is in second place behind the New Testament among ancient writings with just 643 copies.3

The earliest copy of Plato’s Tetralogies is dated about 1,200 years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.4 Compare this with the earliest extant copy of the New Testament: the John Ryland’s Papyri. It contains a portion of John 18. This fragment is dated at about 125AD, only 25 years after the original is thought to have been written.5 In fact, there is possibly an even earlier New Testament fragment that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fragment is called 7Q5; it is dated earlier than 70AD. Though there is heated debate about this manuscript, it has been argued that it is a part of Mark 6:52-53.6 Again, Homer’s Iliad takes second place among ancient writings, second only to the New Testament. The earliest copy of any portion of Homer’s Iliad is dated about 500 years after the original writing.7

When the contents of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament are compared, there appears to be 99.5% agreement. There is total agreement in the doctrines taught; the corruptions are mainly grammatical.8 Homer’s Iliad once again takes second place behind the New Testament among ancient documents. Homer’s Iliad has a 95% accuracy when its copies are compared.9 Since there are so few remaining copies of Plator’s writings, agreement between these copies is not considered a factor (they are probably all copies of the same copy).10

TABLE 8
Comparison of 3 Ancient Writings
Ancient Writing Agreement	Extant Copies	Earliest Extant Copy	Agreement Between Copies
Homer’s Iliad	643	500 years after original	95%
Plato’s Tetralogies	7	1,200 years after original	—
New Testament	over 24,000	25 years after original	99.5%

In short, historical scholars can consider the extant New Testament manuscripts to be reliable and accurate representations of what the authors originally wrote. Since the New Testament is by far the most accurately copied ancient writing, to question its authenticity is to call into question all of ancient literature.

ANCIENT NEW TESTAMENT COPIES

The following manuscripts are some of the better known copies of the New Testament. The John Rylands Papyri is the oldest undisputed fragment of the New Testament still in existence. It is dated between 125 and 130AD. It contains a portion of John 18.11 The Bodmer Papyrus II contains most of John’s Gospel and dates between 150 and 200AD.12 The Chester Beatty Papyri includes major portions of the New Testament; it is dated around 200AD.13 Codex Vaticanus contains nearly the entire Bible and is dated between 325 and 350AD.14 Codex Sinaiticus contains nearly all of the New Testament and approximately half of the Old Testament. It is dated at about 350AD.15 Codex Alexandrinus encompasses almost the entire Bible and was copied around 400AD.16 Codex Ephraemi represents every New Testament book except for 2 John and 2 Thessalonians. Ephraemi is dated in the 400′s AD.17 Codex Bezae has the Gospels and Acts as its contents and is dated after 450AD.18

TABLE 9
ANCIENT NEW TESTAMENT COPIES
Manuscripts	Content	Date
John Rylands Papyri	portion of John 18	125-130AD
Bodmer Papyrus II	most of John’s Gospel	150-200AD
Chester Beatty Papyri	major portions of N. T.	200AD
Codex Vaticanus	almost entire Bible	325-350AD
Codex Sinaiticus	all of N. T. & half of O. T.	350AD
Codex Alexandrinus	almost entire Bible	400AD
Codex Ephraemi	most of N. T.	400′s AD
Codex Bezae	the Gospels & Acts	450AD

The very early dates of these manuscripts provide strong evidence that the current New Testament is one and the same with the original writings of the apostles. There is no logical reason to doubt the reliability of these manuscripts.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS: ANOTHER SOURCE OF N. T. RELIABILITY

The New Testament manuscripts are not the only evidence for the reliability of the New Testament. Another source of evidence is found in the writings of the apostolic fathers. The apostolic fathers were leaders in the early church who knew the apostles and their doctrine.19 Most of their writings were produced between 95 and 150AD.20

Liberal scholars have attempted to find the so-called true Jesus of history. It was their goal to find a non-supernatural Jesus who never claimed to be God. These scholars believe that Christ’s claim to be God and Savior, and His miraculous life (especially His bodily resurrection from the dead) are merely legends. The true Jesus of history was a great teacher; still, He was merely a man.21 Therefore, if it can be shown that early church leaders, who personally knew the apostles, taught that the miraculous aspects of Christ’s life actually occurred and that Jesus did in fact make the bold claims recorded in the New Testament, then the legend hypothesis fails. Historians recognize that legends take centuries to develop.22 A legend is a ficticious story that, through the passage of time, many people come to accept as historically accurate. A legend can begin to develop only if the eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses are already dead. Otherwise, the eyewitnesses or those who knew them would refute the legend. Therefore, a legend has its beginning a generation or two after the event or person in question has passed. However, before a legend receives wide acceptance, several centuries are needed, for there is still a remembrance of the person or event due to information passed on orally from generation to generation. After several centuries, new generations arise without the sufficient knowledge of the person or event necessary to refute the legend. If a written record compiled by eyewitnesses is passed on to future generations, legends can be easily refuted.

One apostolic father, Clement, was the Bishop of Rome. He wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD. The following is a brief quote from this letter:

Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us.23 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God.24 He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.25

It is important to note that Clement of Rome referred to Jesus as “the Lord.” This is an obvious reference to Christ’s deity, for he uses the Greek word “Kurios” with the definite article26 (Christ was the Lord, not a Lord). Clement also spoke of Christ’s blood as being shed for us, indicating a belief in Christ’s saving work. He declared that the apostles received the Gospel directly from Jesus. Clement also spoke of God raising Jesus from the dead. If any of these statements were opposed to the doctrines of the apostles, the Apostle John, who was still alive at the time, would have openly confronted this first century bishop. However, he did not. Therefore, the writings of Clement of Rome provide strong confirmation of the original message of the Apostles. Contrary to the wishful thinking of skeptics, the teachings of the first century church are exactly what one finds in the New Testament.

The apostolic father, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote his letters between 110 and 115AD. During that time, he was traveling from Antioch to Rome to be martyred.27 Ignatius openly wrote about the deity of Christ. He referred to Jesus as “Jesus Christ our God,” “God in man,” and “Jesus Christ the God.”28 Ignatius stated that “there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son.”29 Besides ascribing deity to Christ, Ignatius also wrote of salvation in Christ and expressed belief in Christ’s virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection:

Christ Jesus our Savior . . .30

Jesus Christ, who dies for us, that believing on His death ye might escape death.31

He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin.32

Be ye deaf therefore, when any man speaketh to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was born of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him . . .33

The writings of Ignatius show that only fifteen years after the death of the Apostle John, the central doctrines of the New Testament were already being taught. It is infinitesimal that the New Testament manuscripts, referenced by Ignatius, could have been corrupted in such a short amount of time. It is also important to remember that Clement of Rome taught the same doctrines while the Apostle John was still alive.

Another apostolic father Polycarp (70-156AD) was the Bishop of Smyrna. He was a personal pupil of the Apostle John.34 Had any of the other apostolic fathers perverted the teachings of the apostles, Polycarp would have set the record straight. However, Polycarp’s teachings are essentially the same as that of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Of all the apostolic fathers, Polycarp knew better than any the content of the original apostles’ message. Liberal scholars display tremendous arrogance when they assume that they have more insight into the original apostolic message than Polycarp. Polycarp studied under the Apostle John (85-95AD?); contemporary scholars live nearly 2,000 years later. In his letter to the Philippians, Polycarp wrote:

. . . Jesus Christ who took our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things, that we might live in Him.35

For they loved not the present world, but Him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.36

. . . who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that raised Him from the dead.37

Another student of the Apostle John was Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis. Papias was born between 60 and 70AD and died between 130 and 140AD.38 Papias wrote that he did not accept the words of any self-proclaimed teacher. Instead, he would talk to others who, like himself, had known at least one of the original apostles. In this way, Papias could discover the teachings of Christ from the sources closest to Christ Himself, rather than rely on hearsay testimony.39

Papias wrote of his discussions with persons who spoke with with apostles such as Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, or Matthew.40 Papias stated that Mark received the information for his Gospel from the Apostle Peter himself. Papias also related that Matthew originally recorded his gospel in Hebrew, but that it was later translated into Greek to reach a wider audience.41

The testimony of the first century and early second century church should be considered extremely reliable. For their teachings many of them were martyred. Since people will only die for what they truly believe, it is reasonable to conclude that the early church sincerely believed thay were protecting the true apostolic faith from possible perversions. If they had tampered with the teachings of the apostles, they certainly would not have died for their counterfeit views.

The following conclusions can now be drawn: First, the apostolic fathers form an unbroken chain from the apostles to their day. Second, people who personally knew the apostles accepted the leadership of the apostolic fathers. Third, the apostolic fathers taught essentially the same thing as the New Testament. Fourth, the apostolic fathers and their followers were willing to die for the teachings passed down to them from the apostles themselves. Therefore, our New Testament accurately represents the teachings of the apostles. This includes such key doctrines as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and salvation through Him alone.

ANCIENT SECULAR WRITINGS: ANOTHER WITNESS

Besides references to Christ in Christian literature which dates back to the first and second centuries AD, there are also ancient secular writings which refer to Christ from that same time period. The significance of these non-Christian writings is that, though the secular authors themselves did not believe the early church’s message, they stated the content of what the early church actually taught.

In 52AD, Thallus recorded a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world. In this work, he covered the time period from the Trojan War (mid 1200′s BC) to his day (52AD). Though no manuscripts of Thallus’ work are known to currently exist, Julius Africanus (writing in 221AD) referred to Thallus’ work. Africanus stated that Thallus attempted to explain away the darkness that covered the land when Christ was crucified. Thallus attributed this darkness to an eclipse of the sun.42 This reveals that about twenty years after the death of Christ, non-believers were still trying to give explanations for the miraculous events of Christ’s life.

In 115AD, a Roman historian named Cornelius Tacitus wrote about the great fire of Rome which occurred during Nero’s reign. Tacitus reported that Nero blamed the fire on a group of people called Christians, and he tortured them for it. Tacitus stated that the Christians had been named after their founder “Christus.” Tacitus said that Christus had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (14-37AD). Tacitus related that the “superstition” of the Christians had been stopped for a short time, but then once again broke out, spreading from Judaea all the way to Rome. He said that multitudes of Christians (based on their own confessions to be followers of Christ) were thrown to wild dogs, crucified, or burned to death. Tacitus added that their persecutions were not really for the good of the public; their deaths merely satisfied the cruelty of Nero himself.43

These statements by Tacitus are consistent with the New Testament records. Even Tacitus’ report of the stopping of the “superstition” and then its breaking out again appears to be his attempt to explain how the death of Christ stifled the spreading of the gospel, but then the Christian message was once again preached, this time spreading more rapidly. This is perfectly consistent with the New Testament record. The New Testament reports that Christ’s disciples went into hiding during His arrest and death. After Jesus rose from the dead (three days after the crucifixion), He filled His disciples with the Holy Spirit (about fifty days after the crucifixion), and they fearlessly proclaimed the gospel throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 1 and 2).

Suetonius was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian who reigned over Rome from 117 to 138AD. Suetonius refers to the riots that occurred in the Jewish community in Rome in 49AD due to the instigation of “Chrestus.” Chrestus is apparently a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to these Jews being expelled from the city.44 Seutonius also reports that following the great fire of Rome, Christians were punished. He refers to their religious beliefs as “new and mischievous.”45

Pliny the Younger, another ancient secular writer, provides evidence for early Christianity. He was a Roman governor in Asia Minor. His work dates back to 112AD. He states that Christians assembled on a set day, sangs hymns to Christ as to a god, vowed not to partake in wicked deeds, and shared “ordinary” food.46 This shows that by 112AD, it was already common knowledge that Christians worshiped Christ, sang hymns to Him, lived moral lives, assembled regularly, and partook of common food (probably a reference to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper).

The Roman Emperor Trajan also wrote in 112AD. He gave guidelines for the persecution of Christians. He stated that if a person denies he is a Christian and proves it by worshiping the Roman gods, he must be pardoned for his repentance.47

The Roman Emperor Hadrian reigned from 117 to 138AD. He wrote that Christians should only be punished if there was clear evidence against them. Mere accusations were not enough to condemn a supposed Christian.48 The significance of these passages found in the writings of Trajan and Hadrian is that it confirms the fact that early Christians were sincere enough about their beliefs to die for them.

The Talmud is the written form of the oral traditions of the ancient Jewish Rabbis. A Talmud passage dating back to between 70 and 200AD refers to Jesus as one who “practiced sorcery” and led Israel astray. This passage states that Jesus (spelled Yeshu) was hanged (the common Jewish term for crucifixion) on the night before the Passover feast.49 This is a very significant passage, for it reveals that even the enemies of Christ admitted there were supernatural aspects of Christ’s life by describing Him as one who “practiced sorcery.” This source also confirms that Jesus was crucified around the time of the Passover feast.

Another anti-Christian document was the Toledoth Jesu, which dates back to the fifth century AD, but reflects a much earlier Jewish tradition. In this document, the Jewish leaders are said to have paraded the rotting corpse of Christ through the streets of Jerusalem.50 This obviously did not occur. The earliest preaching of the gospel took place in Jerusalem. Therefore, parading the rotting corpse of Christ through the streets of Jerusalem would have crushed the Christian faith in its embryonic stage. However, some of the other non-Christian authors mentioned above stated that Christianity spread rapidly during the first few decades after Christ’s death. The preaching of Christ’s resurrection would not have been persuasive if His rotting corpse had been publicly displayed.

It is also interesting to note that the Jewish religious leaders waited quite a long before putting a refutation of the resurrection into print. Certainly, it would have served their best interests to disprove Christ’s resurrection. But as far as written documents are concerned, the first century Jewish authorities were silent regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

Lucian was a Greek satirist of the second century. He wrote that Christians worshipped a wise man who had been crucified, lived by His laws, and believed themselves to be immortal.51 Thus, this ancient secular source confirms the New Testament message by reporting the fact that Jesus was worshipped by His earliest followers.

Probably the most interesting of all ancient non-Christian references to the life of Christ is found in the writings of the Jewish historian named Joephus. Joephus was born in 37 or 38AD and died in 97AD. At nineteen, he became a Pharisee (a Jewish religious leader and teacher).52 The following passage is found in his writings:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.53

Since Josephus was a Jew and not a Christian, many scholars deny that this passage was originally written by him. These scholars believe this text was corrupted by Christians. Gary Habermas, chairman of the the philosophy department at Liberty University, dealt with this problem in the following manner:

There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian. Thus we conclude that there are good reasons for accepting this version of Josephus’ statement about Jesus, with modifications of questionable words. In fact, it is possible that these modifications can even be accurately ascertained. In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released the results of a study on an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus’ statement about Jesus. It includes a different and briefer rendering of the entire passage, including changes in the key words listed above. . .54

Habermas goes on to relate the Arabic version of this debated passage. In this version, Jesus is described as being a wise and virtuous man who had many followers from different nations. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but his disciples reported that, three days later, He appeared to them alive. Josephus added that Jesus may have been the Messiah whom the prophets had predicted would come.55

It is highly unlikely that both readings of this controversial passage are corrupt. One of these two readings probably represents the original text. The other reading would then be a copy that was tampered with by either a Christian or a non-Christian. Whatever the case may be, even the skeptic should have no problem accepting the Arabic reading. Still, even if only this reading is accepted, it is enough. For it is a first century testimony from a non-Christian historian that declares that those who knew Jesus personally claimed that He had appeared to them alive three days after His death by crucifixion under Pilate.

Several things can be learned from this brief survey of ancient non-Christian writings concerning the life of Christ. First, His earliest followers worshipped Him as God. The doctrine of Christ’s deity is therefore not a legend or myth developed many years after Christ’s death (as was the case with Buddha). Second, they claimed to have seen Him alive three days after His death. Third, Christ’s earliest followers faced persecution and martyrdom for their refusal to deny His deity and resurrection. Therefore, the deity and resurrection of Christ were not legends added to the text centuries after its original composition. Instead, these teachings were the focus of the teaching of Christ’s earliest followers. They claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ’s miraculous life and were willing to die horrible deaths for their testimonies. Therefore, they were reliable witnesses of who the true Jesus of history was and what He taught.

ANCIENT CREEDS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The writings of both the apostolic fathers and ancient non-Christian authors declare that the earliest Christians did in fact teach that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stronger than that of any other ancient writing. Another piece of evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is the ancient creeds found in the New Testament itself.

Most scholars, whether liberal or conservative, date Paul’s epistles before the Gospels were put into written form.56 Just as the teachings of the Jewish Rabbis had originally been passed on orally, it appears that the Gospel was first spread in the form of oral creeds and hymns.57 J. P. Moreland states that Paul’s epistles contain many of these pre-Pauline creeds and hymns, that they were originally spoken in the Aramaic tongue (the Hebrew language of Christ’s day), and that most scholars date these creeds and hymns between 33AD and 48AD.58 Since Paul’s writings are dated in the 50′s AD or 60′s AD by most scholars, the creeds he recorded in his letters point to an oral tradition which predates his writings. Most scholars will at least admit that these ancient creeds originated before 50AD.59

Excerpts from some of these ancient creeds found in the letters of Paul are as follows:

. . . that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9).

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

And He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:15-17).

These ancient creeds clearly prove that the first generation Christians believed that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead, that He is God, and that salvation comes through Him.60 The followers of Buddha attributed deity to the founder of their religion centuries after his death.61 However, the earliest followers of Christ, those who knew Him personally, considered Him to be God.62 It is almost universally recognized that these creeds were formulated before 50AD. Therefore, they represent the Gospel in its original form.

The belief in Christ’s deity and resurrection is not based on later corruptions of the New Testament text as liberal scholars believe. The doctrines of Christ’s deity and resurrection are not legends that took centuries to develop. These doctrines were held by the first generation church, those who knew Jesus personally. The gospel message found in the New Testament is the same message proclaimed by the apostles themselves.

Less than twenty years after Christ’s death, hymns were already being sung in Christian churches attributing deity to Christ. The apostles were still alive and had the authority to supress the idea of Christ’s deity if it was a heresy, but, they did not. All the available evidence indicates that they not only condoned it, but that it was their own teaching. Therefore, liberal scholars such as John Hick have no justification for their claims that the deity of Christ was a legend that developed near the end of the first century AD.63 The historical evidence indicates that the Christian church always believed in Christ’s deity. Therefore, to deny that Christ claimed to be God is to call the apostles liars.

Nearly 2,000 years after the death of Christ a forum of liberal scholars called the “Jesus Seminar” has been meeting since 1985. These scholars vote to decide which biblical passages they believe Jesus actually said.64 This is ironic since the evidence shows that Christianity proclaimed Christ’s deity and resurrection from its inception. The early church accepted the deity of Christ. The early church was willing to suffer horrible persecution for this belief. Sincere eyewitness testimony should not be ignored.

THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERTS

The testimonies of some of the world’s leading experts can be called upon to further verify the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. Dr. John A. T. Robinson, one of England’s leading New Testament critics, came to the conclusion that the entire New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.65

Sir William Ramsey was one of the world’s greatest archaeologists. His thorough investigation into Luke’s Book of Acts led him to the conclusion that Acts was a mid-first century document that was historically reliable.66

William F. Albright is one of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists. He states that there is no evidential basis for dating any New Testament book after 80AD.67

Sir Frederic Kenyon was one of the world’s leading experts on ancient manuscripts. His research led him to conclude that the New Testament is essentially the same as when it was originally written.68

Millar Burrows, the great archaeologist from Yale, stated that there is no doubt that archaeological research has strengthened confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible. Burrows also stated that the skepticism of liberal scholars is based on their prejudice against the supernatural, rather than on the evidence itself.69

F. F. Bruce, New Testament scholar from Manchester University in England, stated that if the New Testament writings had been secular works, no scholar would question their authenticity. Bruce believes that the evidence for the New Testament outweighs the evidence for many classical works which have never been doubted.70

Bruce Metzger is a famous textual critic from Princeton. He has stated that the New Testament has more evidence in its favor than any other writings from ancient Greek or Latin literature.71

It is clear that the evidence favors the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament. Scholars who do not allow their bias against the supernatural to influence their conclusions have recognized this fact. Scholars who reject the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts do so because they chose to go against the overwhelming evidence. However, such a rejection is not true scholarship; it is an a priori assumption.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from the existing New Testament manuscripts, from the writings of the apostolic fathers, from the works of ancient secular authors, from the ancient creeds and hymns found in the New Testament, and from the opinions of the world’s leading experts have been examined. All this evidence leads to the conclusion that the existing New Testament manuscripts are reliable and authentic testimony of what the apostles wrote. A person is free to deny this conclusion, but to do so is to go against all the available evidence.

The key point is that the original apostles taught that Jesus rose from the dead, and that He claimed to be God incarnate and the Savior of the world.

ENDNOTES

1 McDowell, 42-43.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., 43.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Corduan, 192.

7 McDowell, 43.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., 46.

12 Ibid., 46-47.

13 Ibid., 47.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., 47-48.

16 Ibid., 48.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Cairns, 73.

20 Ibid.

21 Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 42.

22 Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1988), 130.

23 Lightfoot and Harmer, 67.

24 Ibid., 75.

25 Ibid., 68.

26 Ibid., 17.

27 Ibid., 97.

28 Ibid., 137, 139, 149, 150, 156.

29 Ibid., 144.

30 Ibid., 137.

31 Ibid., 147.

32 Ibid., 156.

33 Ibid., 148.

34 Cairns, 74.

35 Lightfoot and Harmer, 180.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., 181.

38 Ibid., 514.

39 Ibid., 527-528.

40 Ibid., 528.

41 Ibid., 529.

42 Habermas, 93.

43 Ibid., 87-88.

44 Ibid., 90.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., 94.

47 Ibid., 96.

48 Ibid., 97.

49 Ibid., 98.

50 Ibid., 99-100.

51 Ibid., 100.

52 Ibid., 90.

53 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus William Whiston, trans. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 480.

54 Habermas, 91.

55 Ibid., 91-92.

56 McDowell and Wilson, 168-170.

57 Ibid., 170.

58 Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 148-149.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., 149.

61 Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Handbook of Today’s Religions (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1983), 307-308.

62 Moreland, 149.

63 John Hick, The Center of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1978), 27-29.

64 J. P. Moreland and Michael J. Wilkins, Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 2-3.

65 McDowell, Evidence, 63.

66 Roy Abraham Varghese, ed. The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley Publishers, 1984), 267-268.

67 Ibid., 267.

68 Ibid., 274.

69 McDowell, Evidence, 66.

70 Varghese, 274.

71 Ibid., 205.