I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (37 page)

How Accurate Is the Reconstruction?

In order to address the issue of accuracy, we need to clear up misunderstandings many critics have concerning “errors” in the biblical manuscripts. Some have estimated there are about 200,000 errors in the New Testament manuscripts. First of all, these are not “errors” but variant readings, the vast majority of which are strictly grammatical (i.e., punctuation and spelling). Second, these readings are spread throughout nearly 5,700 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of
one
letter of
one
word in
one
verse in 2,000 manuscripts is counted as 2,000 “errors.”

Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only
one in sixty
of these variants has significance. This would leave a text 98.33 percent pure.
¹⁵
Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 changed the meaning of the passage, only fifty were of real significance, and
not even one
affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.”
¹⁶

No other ancient book is so well authenticated. The great New Testament scholar and Princeton professor Bruce Metzger estimated that the
Mahabharata
of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s
Iliad
with about 95 percent. By comparison, he estimated the New Testament is about 99.5 percent accurate.
¹⁷
Again, the 0.5 percent in question does not affect a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

Ancient manuscript authority Fredric Kenyon summed up well the status of the New Testament when he wrote:

It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
¹⁸

So we know we have the same New Testament that was written down nearly 2,000 years ago. But the next question is even more important: Do we have an accurate copy of the truth—or a lie? In other words, is the New Testament historically reliable?

Q
UESTION
2: I
S THE
N
EW
T
ESTAMENT
H
ISTORICALLY
R
ELIABLE
?

When we ask the question “Is the New Testament historically reliable?” we are seeking to discover if the major events described in the New Testament documents really happened. Specifically, was there really a Jewish man nearly 2,000 years ago by the name of Jesus who taught profound truths, performed miracles, was crucified by Roman and Jewish authorities for claiming to be God, and who appeared to many witnesses after rising from the dead three days later?

It is important to keep in mind that, at this point, we are
not
seeking to discover if the New Testament is without error or is the “Word of God.” We are simply trying to discover if the basic storyline is fact, not fiction. In order to discover this, we need to ascertain what kind of records comprise the New Testament. Are they documents written soon after the events by eyewitnesses (or by those who interviewed eyewitnesses), or are they documents written much later by biased followers who simply embellished details about the life of a real historical figure?

In order to find out, over the next few chapters we will test the New Testament documents by criteria historians often use to determine whether or not to believe a given historical document. We’ll refer to these criteria as “historical tests.” They include:

1. Do we have early testimony?
Generally, the earlier the sources, the more accurate is the testimony.

2. Do we have eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony is usually the best means of establishing what really happened.

3. Do we have testimony from multiple, independent, eyewitness
sources?
Multiple, independent eyewitnesses confirm that the events really occurred (they are not fiction), and provide additional details that a single source might miss. (True independent sources normally tell the same basic story but with differing details. Historians sometimes call this “coherence with dissimilarity.”)

4. Are the eyewitnesses trustworthy?
Should you believe them? Character matters.

5. Do we have corroborating evidence from archaeology or
other writers?
This adds further confirmation.

6. Do we have any enemy attestation?
If opponents of the eyewitnesses admit certain facts the eyewitnesses say are true, then those facts probably are true (for example, if your mother says you are brave, that might be true; but it’s probably more credible if your archenemy says the same thing).

7. Does the testimony contain events or details that are embarrassing
to the authors?
Since most people do not like to record negative information about themselves, any testimony that makes the author look bad is probably true.

In most cases, documents that meet most or all of these historical tests are considered trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt. How do the New Testament documents fare? We’ll find out over this chapter and the next three chapters. But before we start at historical test number 1 (early testimony), we need to clear away some objections that prevent many skeptics from even considering the reliability of the New Testament.

Common Objections to Reliability

History Cannot Be Known—
The most recent argument generated against even considering the reliability of the New Testament documents is the assertion that history cannot be known. Ironically, this objection normally comes from the same people who say they
know
that the first life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals, and that all subsequent life evolved from that first life without intelligent intervention. They are absolutely sure about
that history
despite the fact that there are no eyewitnesses or corroborating data for those events. Yet they assert that the resurrection of Jesus Christ—an event for which there are eyewitnesses and corroborating data—cannot be known!

The assertion that history cannot be known is against all common sense. Are we not sure that George Washington was the first president of the United States? That Lincoln was the sixteenth? That Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941? That the New York Mets won the 1969 World Series? Of course we are. The skeptic is wrong. We can and do know history. In fact, if we can’t know history, then we could never detect historical revisionism or historical propaganda, both of which assume there’s an objective history that can be known.

Why can’t someone have knowledge of a past event? The skeptic may say, “Because you don’t have access to all the facts!” To which we respond, “Then scientists can’t know anything either, because they don’t have access to all the facts.” This is obviously absurd. While we don’t have access to all the facts, we may be able to gather enough of them to be reasonably certain about what happened.

Part of the confusion involves a failure to define what it means to “know.” Since we can’t go back in time and witness historical events again, our historical knowledge is based on probability. In other words, we use the same standard a jury uses to determine if a defendant committed a crime: beyond a reasonable doubt. If history cannot be known, then no jury could ever reach a verdict! After all, a jury makes a judgment about the guilt or innocence of someone based on
knowledge
of some
past
event. Historians must discover past events just like police and forensic scientists do—by piecing together evidence and interviewing eyewitnesses. And when they do, they often use the seven historical tests we’ve just identified above.

Finally, if we cannot know history, then skeptics cannot claim that Christianity is untrue. To say that Christianity is untrue, the skeptic must know history. Why? Because every negation implies an affirmation. To say that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead (the negation), the skeptic must
know
what actually
did
happen to him (the affirmation).

In the end, skeptics are caught in a dilemma. If they say history cannot be known, then they lose the ability to say evolution is true and Christianity is false. If they admit history can be known, then they must deal with the multiple lines of historical evidence for creation and Christianity.

The New Testament Documents Contain Miracles—
Skeptics usually charge, “The New Testament contains miracles, therefore much of it
has
to be legend!” We’ve already answered that objection. Since God exists, miracles are possible. And as we’ll see in chapter 13, the events of the New Testament are in a context where miracles are not only possible but were predicted. So the inclusion of miracles does not negate the historicity of the New Testament documents but may actually strengthen their historicity (because they record predicted events).

The New Testament Writers Were Biased—
The great skeptic David Hume said witnesses should be unbiased if we’re going to consider them credible. So when skeptics look at the New Testament documents, they often ask, “How can you say they are reliable when they were written by the converted? These are biased accounts written by biased people.”

It’s true that the New Testament writers
were
biased and converted people. But that doesn’t mean they lied or exaggerated. Indeed, their conversion and bias may have actually driven them to be
more
accurate. Let’s see why.

A few years ago, a so-called documentary about Jesus on a cable TV channel led off with this comment from the narrator: “Most of what we think we know about Jesus comes from the New Testament Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But we can’t trust those books for accurate information because they were written by the converted.”

Now, what’s wrong with that logic? What’s wrong with that logic is that it fails to ask the most important question:
Why were they converted?
Indeed, the first and most important question is
not,
“What were the beliefs of the New Testament writers?” The first and most important question is, “Why did they convert to these new beliefs?” In other words, why did the New Testament writers suddenly abandon their livelihoods and treasured religious traditions for these new beliefs?

I (Frank) posed that question to a couple of Black Muslims during a radio debate not long ago. Like traditional Muslims, Black Muslims do not believe that Jesus went to the cross, so there’s no way he could have resurrected. With this in mind, I asked them, “Why did the New Testament writers suddenly convert from Judaism to believing that Jesus rose from the dead?”

One of them said, “Because they wanted power over the people!”

I said, “What power did the New Testament writers gain by asserting that Jesus rose from the dead? The answer is ‘none.’ In fact, instead of gaining power, they got exactly the opposite—submission, servitude, persecution, torture, and death.” They had no answer.

I then asked them the question in a different way: “What possible motive did the New Testament writers have to make up the Resurrection story if it wasn’t true?”

Again, they had no response. Why? Because they began to realize that the New Testament writers had every earthly motive to
deny
the Resurrection rather than proclaim it. There was no motive or incentive to make up the New Testament storyline. The last time we checked, the promise of submission, servitude, persecution, torture, and death would not motivate anyone to make up such a story.

The New Testament writers certainly had no reason to make up a new religion. We must remember that all of them (with the possible exception of Luke) were Jews who firmly believed they already had the one true religion. And that nearly 2,000-year-old religion asserted that they, the Jews, were the chosen people of God. Why would the Jews who converted to Christianity risk persecution, death, and perhaps eternal damnation to start something that 1) wasn’t true and 2) elevated nonJews into the exclusive relationship they claimed to have with the Creator of the Universe? And unless the Resurrection actually happened, why would they, almost immediately, stop observing the Sabbath, circumcision, the Law of Moses, the centrality of the temple, the priestly system, and other Old Testament teachings? The New Testament writers had to have witnessed some very strong evidence to turn away from those ancient beliefs and practices that had defined who they and their forebears were for nearly 2,000 years.

Converted People Are Not Objective—
At this point, the skeptic might protest, “But since the New Testament writers were converted, they can’t be objective.” Nonsense. People can be objective even when they aren’t neutral. A doctor can give an objective diagnosis even if he has strong feelings for the patient. That is, he can be objective even though he isn’t neutral. In fact, his passion for the patient may cause him to be all the more diligent in diagnosing and then treating the disease properly.

In writing this book, while we certainly aren’t neutral, we are pre senting objective facts. Likewise, atheists are not neutral, but they too can present objective facts if they decide to. The New Testament writers could do the same.

The truth of the matter is that all books are written for a reason, and most authors believe what they are writing! But that doesn’t mean what they write is wrong or has no objective element. As we mentioned in the preface, the survivors of the Holocaust who wrote down their experiences certainly were not neutral bystanders. They believed passionately in recording those events so that the world would never forget the Holocaust and, hopefully, never repeat it. While passion may cause some people to exaggerate, it may drive others to be all the more meticulous and accurate so as not to lose credibility and acceptance of the message they wish to communicate.