Though I am somewhat obsessed with the presuppositional method of Christian Apologetics, I also recognize that it is not enough. It is not enough merely to demonstrate that other worldviews are rationally inconsistent while Christianity remains rationally consistent. I think perhaps this is the most glaring sin of omission among the presuppositionalists. It is possible that one can be coherent logically and yet wrong. G.K. Chesterton reminded me of this in his essay concerning the madman. The madman is the most perfectly logical man among us. He can offer air tight arguments as to why he must be Jesus Christ, for example. Any challenge you offer will be quickly met by a wholly reasonable explanation.
Similarly, good stories are tightly contained little worlds, sometimes encompassing an intricate architecture of thought in which every conceivable detail has been meaningfully knit together. One would be hard pressed to find some logical inconsistency in the worlds created by Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare or Dickens. But notice that the worlds they create don't exist! They are brilliant and meaningful fictions and nothing more.
Perhaps Christianity is nothing more than a brilliant and meaningful fiction. Even the staunchest defender of Christianity must acknowledge this possibility. Unless, that is, there is some good reason to believe that there is a confluence of Christianity's robust logical consistency with abundant evidence that recommends it over other worldviews.
In simple terms, Christian apologists have traditionally favored two approaches: One, the presuppositional method; and two, the evidentiary method. Today our focus will be upon the evidentiary method. In short, we will defend the premise that there is significant historical evidence to suggest that Christianity is true. This evidence is supremely visible in two areas of study: the claims of the Bible and the resurrection. (Note: the area of design is another, but we have already covered it)
We begin with evidence for the Bible. It might be best here simply to point you to the work of men like Bruce Metzger, Norm Geisler, Josh McDowell and others, but what follows is a brief summary of some of the central arguments you will find in the work of these men:
A. Autograph - An autograph is an original document. Autographs of the apostle Paul do not exist today, and neither do Autographs of any other book in the Bible. This should not shock or surprise anyone, since these books are over 2000 years old. No book of that age exists in its original form anywhere in the world. What we possess of these ancient books is manuscripts.
B. Manuscript - An copy of an autograph.
C. Historicity - The degree to which various manuscripts can be said to recreate the Autograph. When we study the historicity of a text, we are examining the manuscript evidence in an attempt to reconstruct the original document. Some texts possess relatively better historicity than others because of the wealth of manuscript evidence for those texts.
D. Tests of Historicity - Criteria developed by manuscript historians and scientists to determine the reliability of an ancient document.
The first test is the number of available manuscripts. There should be at least 5 manuscripts available for comparative analysis. If, for example, 4 out of the 5 include a particular phrase, but the latest does not, then it is probably reasonable to conclude that the other 4 contain the original wording, and that the 5th has been changed for some reason. If one only possesses one copy of the document, then it becomes nearly impossible to test the document for accuracy of transmission.
The second test is the gap between the original and the copy. There should be no more than 1000 years separation between them. The greater the gap, the greater the possibility of corruption in transmission, even if there are many manuscripts, because how can one know whether the original is the source or a distant manipulated copy is the source?
The third test is the language groupings and geographical regions in which the manuscripts are found. If, for example, a particular document possesses early manuscript evidence in various geographic regions, then the process of comparative analysis is greatly enriched. Not only that, such a document would be clearly an important text to humanity, since it was not merely a "local narrative." Also, local narratives, if totally isolated from other people groups, can perhaps be nothing more than local myths or hero legends. A book that transcends geographic and language boundaries is less likely to be a local creation meaningful only to a particular tribe.
The first assertion of many Bible critics is that the Bible has been changed over time. Surely it was later theologians who manipulated the text to include things like miracles, the Trinity, etc. I think it can be stated that, when applying the criteria that scientists use to test any other ancient text, we can flatly deny this allegation. In fact, it can actually be proved to a high degree of certainty that the Bible has not in fact been changed over time.
The first assertion of many Bible critics is that the Bible has been changed over time. Surely it was later theologians who manipulated the text to include things like miracles, the Trinity, etc. I think it can be stated that, when applying the criteria that scientists use to test any other ancient text, we can flatly deny this allegation. In fact, it can actually be proved to a high degree of certainty that the Bible has not in fact been changed over time.
The best procedure to adopt when proving this claim is to compare the Bible to other ancient texts. Here is a short list:
Tacitus - Only 20 ancient copies exist and all of them are separated from the original document by over 1000 years.
Homer - 643 copies (2nd to the Bible) and all are separated from the original by more than 1000 years.
Caesar - 10 copies, again all separated by more than 1000 years.
It is important to note that most historians don't question that what we have of Homer or Tacitus is a reasonable facsimile of what each man originally wrote. And yet each possesses credentials that are laughable when compared to the Bible. In fact, NT scholar Bruce Metzger once stated that the weight of Biblical manuscript evidence in comparison with other ancient texts is, "an embarrassment to the other ancient texts of the world's history."
So, what exactly are the Bible's credentials? Get ready for this:
Total Greek texts within 1000 year separation from the originals: 5686
Total texts (all language groups) within 1000 year separation from the originals: 24286
Let me briefly list some notable ancient manuscripts:
The Ryland Papyrus - Sections of John's gospel from chapter 18, dates to c.a.d. 125. This puts these 5 verses from John at roughly 30 years from its original. There is no other ancient manuscript in the world that is closer to its original than the Ryland Papyrus. And get this, if you knew Greek and could read it and then translate it to English, it would read exactly as your Bible does today!
The Codex Sinaiticus - In the 19th century, the most treasured Bible in the world was discovered by a man named Count Tischendorf. He made a journey to the monks of St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula. There he discovered this immense treasure. It was a complete copy of the Greek New Testament dating to the time of Constantine.
The Codex Vaticanus - Another complete copy of the Greek New Testament dating to the time of Constantine, held in the Vatican library.
Again, the remarkable thing about this wealth of Biblical manuscripts is that it allows scholars to recreate the original text to a degree incomparable to any other ancient text. In fact, through text reconstruction, it is clear that the Bible has been preserved from the time of its originals with an astonishing degree of textual purity--a full 98%. In short, we can say with a 98% degree of assurance that the Bible we now read is exactly what the original authors wanted us to read. There is literally no other book in the world like that!
There is another problem. Even if we prove that the Bible is preserved with a 98% degree of textual purity, there is still the matter of author intent. Perhaps it was the author's intent to initially set forth mythology. Or perhaps the authors did not intentionally set forth myth, but what they believed was myth nonetheless.
To prove that the Bible has sound credentials as an ancient document does nothing to address this problem.
It must be acknowledged at the beginning of any attempt to answer this challenge that we are not going to be able to prove our position here. We can perhaps offer numerous evidences, but this will fail to close the circle of proof. Proof on this point would require being able to see the events themselves, but when discussing history one is deprived of that option--that's why it's history!
So here are the points of evidence that suggest the Bible is more than a "historically reliable myth" or a "well preserved myth:"
1. Luke and Acts - Liberal historians and conservative historians agree that Luke is a first rate historian. Your textbook for the class (Unshakable Foundations by Geisler) includes numerous events reported by Luke that have been confirmed in archaeology and extra-biblical sources. It is believed that he reports the events with a keen eye for historical accuracy. Liberal scholars of course reject his claims to miracles, but it does seem curious that they would respect his competency as a historian and then arbitrarily deny his claim that these miraculous events took place in time and shaped events.
2. The Embarrassment Factor - If the NT was the construct of the apostles, then one would expect certain events to be changed in it. For example, most of the disciples are depicted as ignorant and arrogant simpletons. They never seem to understand what is happening. If they were trying to establish their authority, one would expect them to change at least some of this in their favor.
Another peculiar fact concerns the women. Jesus is shown to be a friend of women, which is strange indeed for the 1st century and would undercut his credentials as Messiah. He would be seen as effeminate and weak in the first century world. Women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb and report the discovery to the disciples. This is scandalous since women could not even be witnesses in court in the first century world.
These are two examples of facts mentioned in the Scriptures that are curious if one is reading an attempt to deceive the world concerning Jesus, His disciples and the Christian faith in its infancy. If one were trying to concoct an impressive lie, there are certainly better ways of doing it.
3. Why Die for Publishing a Lie? Clearly the message of the early Christians was not well received. Each of the original disciples died a violent death, with the exception of John (who died of natural causes only after suffering torture under the Roman Emperor Domitian). And yet they believed it so strongly that they did not merely spread it by word of mouth; they set it forth in writing so that it might be preserved and transmitted the world over. But this is yet another way of providing the Romans and the Jews with ample evidence of their treason.
It should be noted that many people die preserving lies, but it is rare indeed for a person to die preserving a lie that he himself authored. One would at least expect one of the disciples, on threat of death or torture, to say that they were making the whole thing up. And if not them, then some contemporary could surely have exposed them.
4. Prophetic Internal Confirmation - This is a tricky area, but one that can yield some fruit. According to McDowell, there are 300 plus Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfills all 300 of them. Matthew's gospel was written to suggest to the Jews that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's Messianic hopes. Both McDowell and Geisler offer some analysis of specific prophecies Jesus fulfills.
5. Extra-Biblical Confirmation - It is perhaps not well known that Jesus shows up in more than just the writings of Christians. He is reported, for example, by Josephus, the Roman Jewish Historian, as well as by Tacitus and Lucian. Josephus even indicates that Jesus was a well known "wonder worker," but then mentions that the Jews questioned the source of his miracles. Note that they did not question the miracles, but they did question how Jesus did them.
Lucian and Tacitus mostly recount details about the early Christians and their claims, but the fact is that both must address this new movement as one rooted in historical claims.
6. Habermas' Minimal Facts Argument - This is perhaps the strongest argument to suggest that the miracle claims of the Bible could be grounded in fact. Gary Habermas is a philosopher with Liberty University in Virginia. He has worked for years with the evidences for the resurrection event. Recently he published his work and in it he develops his now well known "minimal facts argument." He studied several hundred sources written between 1976 and 2004 on the topic of the resurrection. Those he studied represented the whole spectrum of theological enquiry on the question, including the liberal perspective.
Habermas' Thesis at the end of the study: Scholars are in general agreement concerning five key facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus:
A. Jesus died by crucifixion. Habermas discovered that no serious scholar rejects this idea. It is a confirmed fact of history that Jesus died at the hands of the Roman empire.
B. There was an empty tomb phenomenon in Jerusalem in the early years of the Christian movement. In fairness, Habermas estimates that it is about 75% of the scholars he studied who concur on this point. There were many who wanted to destroy Christianity in its infancy, and surely they could have done so by producing a body. How is it that Christianity grows to several thousand on the claims of a literal physical resurrection in the very city where this event took place if the tomb was occupied or the body had been produced? All the theories cited to explain this away are unsatisfactory. It is not reasonable to believe the disciples stole the body, claimed he had risen, and then were tortured and killed for this claim. It is also not reasonable to suggest that Jesus did not die, but was only seriously injured. It is also silly to believe that the disciples hallucinated, since group hallucinations might occur if all were affected by drugs, but would they all hallucinate the same thing? And then would they confidently proclaim it was real the morning after?
C. The Disciples Claimed They Saw Him - All scholars agree that the disciples were deeply affected by something after Jesus' death--something that convinced them to proclaim he was risen. It transformed them into fearless witnesses who stared death in the face with little concern.
D. The Radical Conversion of James - Scholars also agree that James, Jesus' half-brother, was radically transformed after the alleged event of Jesus resurrection. He was a skeptic during Jesus' life and then became leader of the Jerusalem Church after the resurrection, in the end dying for his claims regarding Jesus' resurrection.
E. The Radical Conversion of Paul - Scholars also agree that the Apostle Paul was radically changed after allegedly seeing the risen Jesus. There can be no more pronounced turnaround than the one we see in the life of Paul. He went from being one of the primary figures leading a crusade to annihilate the Christians to becoming their most vocal advocate.
Habermas' Conclusion: Habermas asks the simple question, "What is the best explanation for these five facts agreed upon by all reputable historians?" The best and cleanest explanation is the resurrection itself, as radical an explanation as it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment