External Evidence Test

The Second Test is the Internal Evidence. The bibliographical test has determined only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent.

At this point the literary critic still follows Aristotle’s dictum (maxim): The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself. In other words, one must listen to the clams of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies. The purpose of the historian is not to construct a history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself. Internal and external criteria are be expressed by a series of questions which historians typically ask of ancient documents.

Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on an eyewitness account? Or is it based on hearsay?

If the document doesn’t even claim to be an eyewitness account or based on eyewitness, or at least written from an eyewitness perspective, its value is probably less than if it did make such a claim – though making the claim is not of course itself sufficient to prove the claim is true.

Luke who is not an eyewitness tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that his is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records. Luke 1:1-4 reads, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us. Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitness and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you most excellent Theophilus so that you many know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

John tells us he is an eyewitness in John 19:35, which reads, “The man who saw it has given testimony and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth and he testifies so that you also may believe.” The other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, are both written from the perspective of an eyewitness, though they don’t come out and explicitly claim this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors of the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyran, who had been a Christian for 86 years, and was a disciple of John the Apostle) wrote: “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke the follower of Paul set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John the disciple of the Lord who also leaned on his breast himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.” See also II Peter 1:16, I John 1:3 and Luke 3:1

This closeness to the recorded accounts is an extremely effective means of certifying the accuracy of what is retained by a witness. The historian however, also has to deal with the eyewitness who consciously or unconsciously tells falsehoods even though he is near to the event and is competent to tell the truth.

The New Testament accounts of Christ were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the time of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, “Look we saw this” or “We heard that…” but they turned the tables around and right in front of adverse critics and said, “You also know about these things….You saw them, you yourselves know about it.” One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, “You know this also,” because if he isn’t right in the details, it will be shoved right back down his throat.

Acts 2:22 – “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know…” See also Acts 26:24-28. We'll pick it up next week with the next question within the external evidence test.

The Bibliographical Test

We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority of the New Testament by comparing it with textual material from other notable ancient sources.

The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just 8 manuscripts dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The manuscripts of the history of Herodotus are like wise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce concludes, “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.”

If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. A problem that constantly occurs is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.

Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rest on 9 or 10 copies dating 1,000 years after his death. When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the 2nd century, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. Over 20,000 copies of the New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The book that Homer wrote entitled Iliad has 643 manuscripts and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament. Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest manuscript were written so long after the original writings and the number of existing manuscripts is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is likewise assured.

The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that an authentic New Testament has been established. There exist no documents from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision can be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational bias.

Why Trust the Gospel Accounts

The Bible is full of mistakes. I’m sorry, but indeed, it is. The first mistake was when man rejected God, and the Scriptures show man and woman making the same tragic mistake again and again.

We must be ready to defend the faith we must be equipped to demonstrate that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin. When we can successfully accomplish this, we can answer a host of other objections by appealing to Scripture.

The New Testament provides the primary historical source for information about Jesus. Because of this, many critics have attacked the reliability of the biblical documents. There seems to be a constant barrage of accusations that have no historical foundation or that have now been outdated by archaeological discoveries and research.

I’m not asking you to accept on “blind faith” that the gospels are God’s Word. Forget about that altogether for right now. I’m simply saying let’s look at them as you would any ancient document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research history, and I believe they fare very well and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ, enough in fact, to know that God was present in Him and working through Him in a most significant way.

So what are the criteria which historians apply to ancient documents in order to ascertain their historical value? They can be divided into three groups: bibliographical, internal and external tests. The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and still existing copy? Internal criteria are criteria that apply inside the document under consideration (Content and Composition) and external of course is covering criteria outside the document (Archeology, Art, History and Literature). You’ll see the difference between these two as we proceed. These criteria are best expressed by a series of questions which historians typically ask of ancient documents. But I better stop for now...more news later!

What is SOAR conference?

SOAR is an annual international team leadership experience for senior pastors, youth workers, worship leaders, and student leaders who have dedicated their lives to rescuing young people. This authoritative and influential event will replenish your passion for ministry as you join with peers from around the world to hear some of the highest-flying voices in the Church today. Marinate within inspiring workshop from Paul Baloche and other award-winning artists, and be educated by experts who will address the issues and questions church leaders grapple with on a daily basis. There will also be a time to catch your breath, meet new friends, laugh and just have fun doing a variety of activities.