Introduction
Introduction
As one might imagine, South Florida has a very diverse culture, and I was just one of the millions of people born and raised there. What one might not imagine, however, is that Florida also has some ice hockey players. Well, they do, and I was one of them.
I should note that I was not one of those hockey players who retired and moved to Florida. Rather, I worked at an ice rink and started to play ice hockey while in high school. Though this is considered very late to start playing hockey, I was nevertheless determined to get really good at hockey. Since I worked at the rink, I was able to practice almost every single day. There were several Friday and Saturday nights that I would spend practicing at the rink, many times by myself. The hard work paid off, and I was able to make some high-level teams in Connecticut after high school. I played hockey there for a few years while taking an occasional college class at various community colleges.
After my time up north, I ended up back in Florida and started school full time as a student at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). I did not care much for school, nor was I sure why I was there, but they did have a hockey team. Although the team was decent, the level was different than I was used to, and we played out of a public ice rink. There was no rink on campus, nor we did not have our own locker room.
After my first full year at FAU, I had a friend tell me about a different college that he was going to which he thought was great. I was not terribly interested. He said it was a Christian college and that I might like it. I was still not interested and thought that if I wanted to learn about God, I could do it in Florida (where there were palm trees).
However, a few weeks later he told me they had a hockey team, and this caught my attention. I decided I would at least look at the school’s website, and not only did they have a hockey team, but they had a brand-new ice rink, on campus, and it held a couple thousand people. I applied the next day. I ended up making the team with a friend of mine, who was also from Florida, while the rest of the team was about 80 percent Canadian.
While on campus one day, I met the former hockey coach, and his name was Gary Habermas. I did not think much of it at the time. A short time later, during one of my classes, I found out that Habermas did more than just coach the hockey team. He was a well-known scholar. Aside from his debates with famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew, Habermas was known for being one of the leading experts on Jesus’ resurrection and developing the minimal facts approach. I began to study Jesus’ resurrection more deeply myself, and realized I had a lot to learn.
Growing up, I heard the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5–7) at a young age, and it made a major impact on my life. However, these beliefs were challenged in various ways as I grew up in South Florida. Though people had different views on life’s biggest questions, I rarely encountered people who had any deep or thoughtful discussions on these issues. I would often wonder about how Jesus compared to these other views, and what evidence, if any, was available. I was often reluctant myself to speak on these things, either, since I was not quite sure of my own views.
I also remember seeing Christians being made fun of on TV because of Christian hypocrites who acted immorally. Seeing this was conflicting for me because it was true that there were people who claimed to be Christians who acted immorally (and they were wrong for doing so). So those who called them hypocrites were correct on that point, but it was not true that this also applied to the Jesus or the gospel. It seemed clear to me that we could only know that they were hypocrites because they acted against what Jesus taught (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount). But beyond that, I was not sure what to think.
I also had questions as someone who tried to read the Bible multiple times but stopped each time. I would start at Genesis and then end up quitting after a few books because I could not understand much of what was going on. If I heard a sermon or teachings about the New Testament (NT), I did not know who the NT authors were, how the NT came together in the first place, whether it was reliable, and how we could know. Though I might superficially understand the point of various NT teachings, I often kept these questions to myself, and in some cases I did not even realize the questions I had.
As I attended classes, I saw that others were parsing these questions and issues at a deeper level, so I did too. I also had conversations with various professors and the long road trips allowed me to read more books on these topics as well as listen to various podcasts, debates, and lectures. Another simple thing I began to do was read three chapters a day of the NT. Ultimately, after I received my undergraduate degree in business, I still wanted to learn more and so obtained a master’s degree in religious studies and eventually a PhD in theology. During these years there was lots of studying, discussions, publications, and academic presentations. Along the way, I also became Habermas’s research assistant, and now we have worked together for several years.
So what? Why share all this?
I think there are a lot of people out there who are similar. Some may have an initial understanding about Jesus and the NT, but want to learn more out of a desire to grow more in their faithfulness (e.g., discipleship). Some may simply have questions about the NT itself because they have heard others criticize it. Some may have their own personal doubts about the NT and want to know if there is any evidence for the reliability of the NT and, if so, what is it. Still others may approach these issues from more skeptical points of view and are unaware of why someone may find the NT reliable. This book, then, is for people who want to dig deeper into the New Testament and issues regarding its reliability, whether as a disciple or as a doubter.
What I hope to accomplish in this book is to introduce thirteen different arguments that each point toward the reliability of the New Testament. I will be presenting these arguments as though it were the reader’s first time coming into contact with them. Hopefully, this will help the reader understand the different levels and angles at which the New Testament is trustworthy as well as give a new appreciation of the NT when reading it. Moreover, although there will always be debates—and some debates are better than others—I will try to give general arguments and conclusions in each chapter that are well-attested. More technical debates, nuances, and the like will be provided in the footnotes but these discussions are beyond our immediate scope. Another reason I am introducing these thirteen considerations is that some readers will find some more interesting than others (I know I do!). Accordingly, at the end of each chapter I have included reading recommendations for those who wish to dig deeper on a given topic.
A PRINCETON PROFESSOR ON THE GOSPELS
Many of us have seen the New Testament criticized or mocked. It might therefore come as a big surprise to find that, in 1994, a noted Princeton professor named James Charlesworth highlighted “twenty areas of consensus among experts involved in Jesus Research.” One of the areas of consensus is that there is “considerable and reliable bedrock historical material in the Gospels.” Charlesworth stressed that the consensus on this point has “far too many international authorities to mention,” with each of them “independently, recognizing that in its broad outline the Gospels’ account of Jesus is substantially reliable and true.” These comments may seem quite remarkable to both believers and nonbelievers alike. After all, we often see the New Testament quickly dismissed or ridiculed by various skeptics or media figures.
Yet, if the New Testament is so bad, why would a college professor such as Charlesworth, a professor at one of the leading universities in the world, comment that there are “far too many international authorities to mention” regarding the “considerable and reliable bedrock historical material in the Gospels”? How do they know it is reliable? What are some of the arguments that convinced so many experts worldwide? What about the rest of the New Testament?
To answer these questions, I will introduce several reasons that support this scholarly position on the Gospels while also including other New Testament writings. As might be expected, for such a position to be persuasive globally, it must depend on a highly evidenced and robust case with multiple lines and levels of argumentation. My goal is to systematically introduce some of these arguments and highlight the different angles at which they argue for the general reliability of the New Testament.
RELIABILITY LIKE A MAP
What do I mean by arguing for reliability at different levels or angles with multiple lines of argumentation and evidence? Here an analogy to Google Maps may be helpful. Say, for example, we are using a map and trying to find Miami, FL. We cannot simply look for the first Miami that we find since there are numerous cities named Miami throughout the world. In order to find Miami, FL we must first zoom out to make sure we are in the right country. Next, we would need to zoom in enough to make sure we are in the correct state, then finally zoom in a little more into the right city.
If we were to zoom out and have a macro view only, then we would not have enough specific information regarding the particulars of the city. What kind of buildings does it have? What do they look like? On the other hand, if we were to use only the zoomed-in view, then we would have a number of particular buildings and roads but would not be in a good position to know whether or not we are in the right city (perhaps we accidentally were looking at Miami, OH!). Thus, just like a map, we want the ability to be able to move in and out as needed in order to have a better understanding of the landscape around us.
As I begin examining the arguments for general reliability, I will start from the zoomed-out perspective to highlight what we can establish with some initial confidence. I will then zoom in to specific events and focus on some particulars. Not every argument I examine fits cleanly into this analogy (e.g., archaeology), but this analogy nevertheless provides a good starting point for my approach to the multiple angles we will be using to understand the reliability of the New Testament.
MAPPING THE ARGUMENTS: A BAKER’S DOZEN
In keeping with this analogy, it will be helpful to provide a zoomed-out overview of the various arguments I will be introducing in this book. This will give us an idea of the breadth of the different considerations and which aspect of reliability they address.
1. New Testament textual evidence: Does our modern New Testament contain the words that were originally written? How can we know? Having confidence in the words is an important starting point to test for reliability because we need to know what the authors actually claimed in order to confirm or deny it. We cannot ask whether a report is true if we do not know what was originally claimed.
2. New Testament genres and audience expectations: How were ancient readers expected to understand the New Testament writings? If readers expected the accounts to be historical, then this would add to the text’s credibility in that it was expected to be taken seriously. On the other hand, if the audience knew that they were fanciful novels, then this would indicate that the authors were free to invent fictional material.
3. New Testament dating: When were these works written? Events that are reported closer the time they took place are generally to be preferred over those that are reported later. If these works were written during the apostles’ lifetime, this would be a good sign.
4. New Testament authorship: Who wrote the different books of the New Testament? It would be better to have sources that were written by those involved in the events or those who knew the ones involved.
5. New Testament creedal traditions: First, what is a creedal tradition? Second, what do they have to do with the claims of the New Testament? As we will see, these are not the later creedal traditions, such as the Nicene Creed, but highly evidential formulas within the New Testament itself.
6. Historical criteria: What convinces historians that an event occurred? Historians use various criteria that, if met, can often add to the probability of an event’s occurrence. These criteria help historians navigate sources they might even consider unreliable, biased, or mistaken.
7. Undesigned coincidences: Why does the same account look different when reported in two different sources? What are we to think if the two accounts come together like puzzle pieces and form a bigger picture? When two independent reports illuminate each other in ways that appear to be undesigned or unintentional, this can add to the likelihood of an event’s occurrence.
8. Archaeology: Is there any physical evidence that supports the claims in the New Testament? Have any material remains survived that affect our understanding of the New Testament? Have there been archaeological findings that challenge the New Testament? Physical evidence that has survived into the present can shed light on various aspects of the claims in the New Testament, which can be shown to be either consistent or inconsistent.
9. Non-Christian sources: What do non-Christian sources report? Are there sources that confirm or are consistent with the teachings of the New Testament? Are there sources that challenge the New Testament reports? If non-Christian sources corroborate claims of the New Testament, then this would seem to add reliability to the New Testament texts.
10. Noncanonical Christian sources: What do noncanonical Christian sources report? In other words, what did the early church report about Jesus and the apostles? Do these sources paint a picture consistent with the New Testament? Or do they introduce new teachings? If these sources corroborate the claims of the New Testament, then this would add another layer to the reliability of these texts.
11. New Testament Canon and Credibility: How did the New Testament become a collection? What about texts that were excluded from New Testament? Are they better evidenced than the New Testament? If the New Testament was created using methods that depended on and/or desired reliable texts, this would also indicate that the texts are reliable.
12. Spiritual and life transformation: Is there evidence of lives transformed in a manner consistent with New Testament teachings? In other words, if New Testament reports about Jesus’ life and actions are true, along with the teachings of the early church, we would expect to find lives transformed.
13. Minimal facts approach: Can the events central to the gospel message be confirmed even if the New Testament is unreliable in some areas? Are there historical facts related to Jesus’ death and resurrection that scholars from wide-ranging theological backgrounds agree on due to their being highly evidenced? If so, this would indicate that other arguments, such as the dozen above, have greater viability.
Each of these provides a unique perspective and varies in the amount of weight to add to the general reliability of the New Testament. Some chapters will be more weighty than others, but cumulatively they provide a powerful case for reliability. With all of these differing angles in mind, it is no surprise that it is a fact that much “can be known about Jesus with a high degree of confidence, apart from theological or ideological agendas, is perhaps surprisingly robust.”
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND AIMS
One of the purposes of this book is to help readers become aware of a wide variety of NT stories, and some of these may seem quite basic. For example, many may be somewhat familiar with the Gospels, and others will also know that there was a famous persecutor of the early church who saw the risen Jesus and dramatically turned his life around as a result, named Paul. However, there will be those who do not know that after Paul converted, he then went on to write several letters in the New Testament. I was one of those people, and when I learned this fact, I found it simply remarkable on many levels. Accordingly, I am trying to introduce factors that may appear elementary to some while also exposing the reader to deeper elements.
Last, I hope to provide some evidential insights and considerations that readers may similarly be unaware of. There is a particular force in systematically presenting each of these aspects since scholars often take one or more for granted in their writings. By identifying each section individually, we can better understand the differing levels, or angles, of the New Testament landscape. Those interested in going beyond the introductory comments in each chapter will find book recommendations at the end of each chapter. This applies, surprisingly or not, to believers, questioners, doubters, and skeptics alike. I aim to present verifiable data in each chapter (with some nuance concerning spiritual and life transformation). Such evidence does not change whether one is a believer, nonbeliever, or anywhere in between. In fact, atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman writes that whether or not the New Testament consists of inspired and inerrant Scriptures, “they can be seen and used as significant historical sources.”
The value, then, of providing this information in this systematic yet survey-style manner is to help the reader better understand the general reliability of the NT. Whether believers or nonbelievers, one takeaway should be a greater appreciation of the New Testament as well as the evidential considerations that point to its reliability. Indeed, given Jesus’ worldwide impact, this book provides a valuable resource as it introduces these topics.
Due to this work’s brevity and introductory nature, I will more often than not focus on the Gospels (and Acts) and Paul’s writings. I will not neglect other writings, but where space prohibits, I will only focus on these writings. For those who wish to dig deeper, you can consult the recommended-reading sections at the end of each chapter or review the footnotes.
Figure I.1. The cumulative case for the reliability of the New Testament
A numbered list titled “NT Reliability”: 1. Textual evidence. 2. Genre of the New Testament. 3. New Testament dating. 4. New Testament authorship. 5. Creeds and confessions. 6. Historical criteria. 7. Undesigned coincidences. 8. Archaeological evidence. 9. Non-Christian sources. 10. Noncanonical Christian sources. 11. Development of the canon. 12. Spiritual and life transformation. 13. Minimal facts.