We live in America, in a land where our rights are cherished and valued beyond anything else. They are embedded in our DNA as free people who secured these rights through violent revolution against a European superpower, fought a civil war, engaged in two world wars and witnessed the civil rights movement rise in the 1960s under the leadership of Martin Luther King. After all, our national birth certificate prominently displays the phrase “all men are created equal” and that we are “endowed” by our “Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For many, too much blood, sweat and tears have been invested in securing these rights to allow them to be destroyed. The ability to protest is viewed as a sacred right in the U.S.

Understandably, many protestors are furious with the recent handling of the arrest of a black man at the hands of white police officers in Minneapolis. Such is the case with the recent killing of George Floyd. The ensuing protests, violent riots and destruction of property in protest of government abuse has spread across the country in recent days. This has caused many to consider when, if ever, is it justified to violate the law in civil disobedience, and whether disobedience should ever use violence. For Christians who seek to be obedient to God and His Word, these questions can challenge the best of us in light of the apostle Paul’s statement on the relationship between God, government and its citizenry in Romans 13:1-7.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience” (Romans 13:1-5).

Despite this passage, many Christians are deeply patriotic and yet recognize that our country was founded on violent rebellion to established laws! We also understand that government was established by God for the good of the people and to resist government would be tantamount to resisting God Himself. So, when is it justified to disobey government, and should it be violent or non-violent?

Three Views of Civil Disobedience

Though the question posed above can be a thorny one to navigate, especially with so many differing perspectives and emotions on the matter, the Scriptures and common sense give us guidance.

There are three basic positions on civil disobedience: 1) anarchy, the belief it’s always right to disobey government since they reject governmental authority, 2) radical patriotism, it’s never right to disobey, and 3) Biblical submissionism, sometimes right to engage in civil disobedience.

The anarchist position may be attractive to some young people seeking to remove the bonds of government accountability and promote change through violence against those with whom they disagree. But upon a closer look, this view appears self-defeating and unsustainable on the “might makes right” mentality. Obviously, Nazi Germany was arguably the most powerful nation in the world by 1939, yet its Final Solution policy of genocide cannot be condoned as virtuous by any society, whether anarchist or otherwise. It is not difficult, especially in light of Romans 13, to see why Christians reject anarchy as a plausible approach to civil disobedience.

Radical patriotism, which claims we ought to obey government right or wrong, may be a more popular position among the Christian community due to Paul’s strong language in Romans 13 and our founding fathers’ statements concerning God and government.

George Washington says:

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand [of God] which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (First Inaugural Address, 1789).

James Madison writes:

“Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe” (Memorial & Remonstrance, 1785).

John Jay said:

“Providence [God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers” (President of Continental Congress, 1778-1779).

Many Christians see America as a “Christian nation” from its founding, which means to them that God and government are nearly synonymous, prompting unflinching obedience to obey government as we would obey God. However, this viewpoint has several problems.

First, many passages describe God’s people as approvingly disobeying government officials and policy. Daniel’s three friends, while in Babylonian captivity, disobeyed the government command to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Daniel 3:1-30). In addition, Peter and John refused to obey the command by the Sanhedrin to stop preaching in public (Acts 4:13-22).

Second, despite the fact there were many fine Christians involved in founding our country, it would not be accurate to characterize America as an official “Christian nation.” Though the Declaration of Independence appeals to God and His providence, it would be more accurately posited that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the concept of natural law ethics in the tradition of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke and William Blackstone (cf. Romans 2:15).

Third, the founders did not want another religious government, they just left this type of rule in England. They correctly recognized that civil society ought to be governed by natural law and common sense, not religious dogma. For natural law was given to all men by God (Romans 2:15), while scriptural revelation was given to God’s people to govern the church. It simply would be inappropriate and perhaps immoral, much like forced Islamic law, to impose religious doctrine upon an unbelieving public. In their genius, the fathers utilized man’s innate understanding of right and wrong (natural law) as the basis to form public policy, all of which is consistent with Scripture. An example of its implementation is found in the Nuremberg trials following WWII as international prosecutors used the charge of “crimes against humanity” to convict captured high ranking Nazis for war crimes.

The remaining option, biblical submissionism (sometimes is right to disobey government), appears to offer Christians two approaches to disobey government – either antipromulgationist or the anticompulsionist positions. The former supports disobedience when the government promulgates laws that are incompatible with Bible doctrine. According to this view, in the event of immoral public policy, the government is seen as abdicating its God-given authority and the immoral policy should be viewed as null and void. Meaning that antipromulgationists view American government as a De Jura institution, directly linking governmental authority to the consistency of policy with Bible doctrine. Thus, breaking the law is justified in order to change unbiblical laws or to preserve a greater good. According to this was of thinking, trespassing or vandalism is acceptable when protesting an abortion clinic. This view is articulated in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex: The Law is King (1644) and adopted in recent times by Francis Schaeffer in his Christian Manifesto (1980).

Unlike the former, the anticompulsionist justifies civil disobedience only when the government compels (mandates) its citizens to do what is immoral. In other words, anticompulsionists don’t believe Christians have the right to disobey when government simply permits immoral behavior through its laws (e.g. abortion), but only when citizens are commanded to obey immoral laws (e.g. mandating abortion vs. permitting abortions).

It appears that the first option (anarchy) supporting civil disobedience does not have biblical support and lacks common sense to operate a functioning society. Even the anarchist must be governed by its own laws or rules, which makes it self-defeating in its hard form. Radical Patriotism supports blind obedience to governmental authorities, which history shows can be dangerous (e.g. Nazi fascism). It also appears to contradict biblical examples of approved disobedience. But does the Biblical submission position have biblical support?

There are at least eight cases of civil disobedience in Scripture that are explicitly or implicitly approved by God.

1) Exodus 1:15-21 – Hebrew Midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s command to kill newborn

Hebrew male babies.

2) Exodus 5:1-2; 7-14 – Disobey Pharaoh’s command to make bricks without straw.

3) Joshua 2:3-4; 6:25; Heb 11:31 – Rahab disobeyed the government officials’ command

to disclose the location of Israelite spies.

4) 1 Kings 18:3-15 – Obadiah hid 100 prophets from Queen Jezebel despite her command.

5) Daniel 3:5, 18 – Daniel’s three friends refused to worship the golden image

(cf. 3:25-30)

6) Daniel 6: 7, 10, 22 – Daniel prayed against the law.

7) Acts 4:17-19, 21 – Peter and John disobeyed the Sanhedrin’s command to not teach

in the name of Jesus.

8) Revelation 13:16-17; 14:9-12 – Anti-Christ causes/commands all to take a mark,

those who obey will be lost.

In each of these cases, there was a command by authorities to do evil; an act of disobedience to that command; an implicit or explicit approval by God; the disobedience was non-violent; some fled and others accepted the authorities’ punishment. These examples give Christians precedence on how to respond to oppressive governments.

First, obey the laws of the land, even if they permit evil (abortion). Work within the law to change these permissive immoral laws.

Second, it is acceptable to disobey the government’s immoral laws if they command Christians to do evil. God’s law is higher than earthly governments, so when the two come into conflict, choose the higher law. Essentially, you are choosing the greater good.

Third, patiently endure suffering and expect prosecution if you disobey. Be ready to accept the punishment.

Fourth, civil disobedience should be non-violent. God gave authority to the government to use arms to punish unruly citizens and to protect its citizens from hostile foreign governments (war). Unlike government authority, God did not authorize the people to take up arms against the government personnel. There are other non-violent means to actively and passively resist oppressive government, such as protest, legislation, publishing, fleeing and hiding. Non-violent civil disobedience brings up an apparent conundrum for those Christians who patriotically wave the flag each fourth of July in celebration of our country’s founding, in spite of the violent rebellion against Britain to achieve nationhood. However, one can simply enjoy the end result and still reject the means by which it arrived, much like a baby born from rape. We can be a patriotic American and celebrate the “baby” without endorsing the way in which the country was conceived. Granted, national change may take longer without violence, but Canada, through patience and negotiation, finally received independence from European powers without a revolution.

Conclusion

For the Christian, justified civil disobedience requires government to issue a command to do evil. In such cases, the believer has not only a right but a duty to disobey. The violent riots in the name of George Floyd do not meet these criteria. Though government forces were involved in the unjust and tragic death of Floyd, they are not commanding the public or its officers to do the same to others. Namely, the officer’s arrest tactics were an aberration of normal protocol in such instances, not the fulfillment of mandated procedure. Rather, they are punishing the officers involved in the tragedy. Peaceful protest within the confines of the law is acceptable, but violence is not. Ultimately, proper civil disobedience begins with submission to God’s Word and recognizing the government’s God-given authority. This way we can properly honor the memory of George Floyd and begin the discussion of how to improve public policy, administration and enforcement.

Many today are questioning how, if God is loving and good, how could God allow the coronavirus (COVID-19) to cause so much pain and suffering and to take so many lives. Let’s face it, it does look bleak out there, pain and suffering, quarantine, the stock market is crashing, various sports clubs have suspended their seasons, restaurants and entertainment centers are shuttered, economic activity has slowed to a trickle, and the country is locked down in quarantine. Any honest thinker would justifiably question where God is in all this, or at least try to make sense of God in relation to evil.

There are eight principles to consider when wrestling with this question:

1. Evil is not a material thing.

Our first inclination is to think of the coronavirus as “pure evil” due to its devastating effects on human life. Though invisible to the unaided eye, the virus is very much part of the material world. However, we run into a problem knowing that when God created everything in the material world, He called it “good,” including bacteria and viruses. This leads us to consider that “if God created everything, and evil is a material thing (and viruses are things), it follows that God directly created evil.” On the surface, this argument seems formidable. However, when we realize that it’s impossible for an all-good God to directly create evil, we are left with the question:

If God created everything, and evil is a thing (evil is not an illusion), then how can we not blame God for evil? The answer to this conundrum was given 1,500 years ago through the writings of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Evil is not a material thing, it is a lack of what should be present in good things. For example, a broken arm could only be possible if there is a good arm to break. Or a hole in your best shirt is a lack of cloth in the place it should be present. In other words, evil is not a material thing per se, though it’s certainly real. Rather, it’s a privation, absence, lack or a hole in things. Therefore, evil in-and-of-itself is not a thing, nor does it have any existence at all apart from some good host it corrupts.

2. God does not cause evil but does permit it to occur.

An all-loving and All-good and moral God cannot cause evil, or will or not will evil, but according to Scripture and life experience, He does permit it. Permitting evil is necessary to produce higher goods in free creatures. There is no courage without danger; no patience and perseverance without tribulation; no character without adversity; no gain with no pain! In addition, evil must be permitted if God was to make man truly free. Freedom is what makes love, life, praise and blame meaningful.

That is to say, though God made evil possible, man made evil actual through his misuse of freedom. God gave the fact of freedom; man performs the acts of freedom. To blame God for making evil possible would be like blaming Henry Ford for all automobile accidents since he made them possible. Finally, and perhaps the most significant of all reasons [for] that God may have for allowing evil today, God would have to eliminate freedom in order to eliminate evil, since evil arises from free decisions. And if freedom is abolished, human beings can no longer be saved. Matthew said to let the wheat and the tares grow side by side until the end, lest we do damage to the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). God will eventually bring evil to a total end, but for now, there are many more that need to be saved.

3. Permitting evil is the best way forward.

Why would God create this world if he knew pain and suffering (evil) would occur? It would seem an All-powerful God had other options instead of creating a world where evil was possible. Most would agree that our world is not the best possible world, but it is the best possible way to get to the best possible world with free creatures involved. To permanently defeat the possibility of evil and death, you must defeat evil and death. In God’s wisdom, He created a world in which total victory could be achieved with free human beings, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve had a big problem in their pre-fallen state, as perfect as they were in a perfect garden, they still had the potential to be tempted, sin, suffer and die.

Fortunately, God has a plan to solve this problem through the person and work of Christ, in whom we can look forward to a blissful eternal life where these evil “potentials” will not be possible. Some question whether God has victory or is morally just when some are eternally separated from Him. However, God would only be unjust if there were someone in hell that shouldn’t be there. It’s actually a testimony to God’s respect for human autonomy and free will of those who choose to be separated from Him. Saving everyone (universalism) is not the criteria for victory, rather, saving all who freely receive is victory. Some in heaven and some in hell is better than no people in heaven and no one in hell. Half of a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.

4. The world is fallen and awaiting redemption.

Since the first sin by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, our material world resides under a fallen and decaying state barreling toward corruption and death. This unfortunate situation was precipitated by the devil and disobedience to God’s commands. The sad consequence of sin is physical and spiritual death. Paul says even creation groans to be released from corruption (Romans 8:19-23). The implications of our sin in a fallen world is often felt when nature rears its dark side. There is nothing evil, not even the coronavirus, about the material world, since all material was created by God. However, there is a bad (non-moral, physically evil) relationship between COVID-19 and the human respiratory system. This evil is made possible due to a fallen people living in a fallen world. Because of Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, and resurrection from the grave, we look forward to a time when there will be no more pain, suffering and death.

5. Awareness of evil leads to sober reflection.

We often learn our greatest life-lessons in times of pain and suffering. Realizing our own frailty and mortality lends itself to consider the value of life which otherwise would not be given a second thought during good times. In this sense, death becomes a universal preacher to sober our thinking about what really matters, life, family, God, and doing the good. This awareness also encourages us to enjoy the good times when they arrive and maintain a thankful heart for the pleasures of life. Ultimately, we cultivate a sense of urgency knowing that our time on earth is limited. Often, humility is the result of sober reflection.

6. The benefits of evil.

Most are quick to express their disdain for evil and its tragic effects, while at the same time slow to recognize that the presence of evil in the world often cultivates growth in character. The Bible makes clear that trials in our life will produce patience and endurance (James 1:2-4; Romans 5:3-4; 2 Peter 2:20). Without pain and suffering, there could be no compassion or empathy; without great need, there could be no servanthood; without trial, there is no perseverance, patience or courage; without the sickness, there can be no physical or spiritual healing or wholeness.

We need to remind ourselves that Christ’s suffering and death led to eternal life, resurrection and lasting peace for those who receive His sacrifice. To be certain, how one responds to evil is important, since not every response leads to growth. There are those who deal with evil by hardening their heart against God and become increasingly selfish. There is truth in the saying “You can become bitter or better,” depending how you deal with evil when it comes knocking.

7. It’s self-defeating to reject God because of evil.

Some use the presence of pain, suffering and evil as an argument against the existence of God. They say if God was All-good, All-loving and All-powerful, He could and would destroy evil. Since evil is not destroyed, there is no such God that is All-loving, good or powerful. God is either unjust, indifferent to evil, or does not exist at all. On the surface, it appears to be a formidable objection to God. In actuality, it is an argument for the reality of God. Former Oxford University scholar and atheist, C.S. Lewis, held a form of this position, but finally realized its flaw. He wrote:

“My argument was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust. A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too…” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 45).

Lewis recognized that his argument unwittingly assumed there existed an ultimate standard by which to claim the world fell short. It made his argument against God arbitrary, no better than the next person’s reasons. In essence, his argument against God from evil fails since one cannot rationally claim the world is getting better or worse without an objective standard by which to measure it. That is to say, we can’t know something is “not-just” unless we know what is ultimately just. Therefore, the argument against God turns out to be an argument for God.

8. There are purposes for pain and suffering.

Besides gaining character virtues through enduring evil, there are also recognizable purposes for evil that yield practical benefits. It’s important to understand that God has good purposes for everything, including evil, even if we are not aware of them (Deuteronomy 29:29). Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, forced into Egypt and cast into jail for a crime he didn’t commit.

Eventually, God placed him in a position of authority and used him in a mighty way to preserve the entire region (including his family) from starvation, as well as preserve the lineage of the Messiah. Joseph recognized God’s purposes when he said to his brothers, “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (Genesis 50:20). What is more, adversity often leads us to rely on God’s comfort. And this comfort we experienced can, in turn, be offered to comfort others (2 Corinthian 1:4). Further, trials in life can lead us to become less selfish (2 Corinthians 1:9). Moreover, pain and suffering can serve as an alarm to prevent greater evils (Exodus 20:12). A toothache is a warning sign to prevent greater problems if left unattended (e.g. root-canal). In other words, God can use pain and suffering to get our attention (Jonah 2) and change our priorities for our own good (Jonah 4).

C.S. Lewis insightfully comments: “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 81).

God cares about human suffering, and this is the reason Christ gave his life (John 3:16). Paul places our trials in perspective when he wrote, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:17).

Because scholars do not possess the original writings of the New Testament (known as autographs),¹ we must ask: How accurate are the manuscript copies (apographs)? For if the copies do not reflect the original writings of Scripture, we would have no idea what the original texts said. Because there were no copy machines available in ancient times, the tedious transmission process had to be accomplished by the scribe’s own hand. Hence, copies we recalled “manual-scripts” or manuscripts.

As modern scholars conduct a careful analysis of the manuscript copies, it is obvious that the New Testament text contains minor scribal “mistakes.” This has led some to erroneously assume the Bible is not inspired or inerrant in all that it states, claims, teaches and implies. This false assumption emerges from the notion that all New Testament copies produced through the centuries must be exact replicas of the original text. That is to say, with regard to the time when the New Testament was originally written until the time the printing press was invented, some have demanded that the scribes copy the text 100 percent accurately, or it cannot be considered inspired or inerrant. They conclude that because the scribes fell short of perfect transmission, an inspired and inerrant Bible is impossible. However, there are several reasons Christians believe the New Testament manuscripts were copied accurately (despite minor scribal mistakes) and why it can still be considered the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

To understand this issue better, we should familiarize ourselves with the process Bible scholars undertake in their effort to reconstruct the original text. Scholars diligently work like forensic scientists analyzing a crime scene, carefully examining the evidence left behind so they can reconstruct what originally happened. Similarly, by evaluating and comparing the textual evidence (known as textual criticism), scholars can then work backward to establish what was originally written. Our English Bible is the culmination of this textual investigation.

Examining the Textual Evidence

There are three main areas of textual evidence to consider when answering the question of whether the New Testament manuscripts were copied accurately: (1) the number of Greek manuscripts, (2) the dating of the manuscripts, and (3) the textual accuracy of the manuscript copies.

The Number of Greek Manuscripts

The New Testament possesses the greatest number of manuscripts of any book from the ancient world (prior to AD 350). To better understand the scope of the numbers involved, as of 2017, the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, located at the University of Munster in Germany, currently lists the official number at 5,856 partial and complete manuscript copies written in the Greek language.² These include handwritten copies of the New Testament papyri, parchment and lectionaries. If we add to this number more than 18,000 New Testament manuscripts written in other languages (translations) besides Greek, the overall count swells to nearly 24,000 New Testament manuscripts! Because the versions are in a different language from the original Greek, they are not as valuable as the Greek manuscripts in reconstructing the text. However, they are still important witnesses to the text’s reliability and transmission.

We can appreciate the robust number of New Testament manuscripts by comparing it with the number of manuscripts available for other works from the ancient world. For example, the second-most-supported work behind the New Testament is Homer’s well-known poem Iliad, with more than 1,900 manuscripts.³ Ancient literature was rarely translated into another language—with the New Testament being an important exception. From the very beginning, Christian missionaries, in their attempts to spread the gospel, translated the New Testament into the various languages of the people they encountered. These translations, some made as early as the middle of the second century, give us an important witness to the text of that time.

The greater number of manuscripts available gives scholars added confidence when it comes to reconstructing the original New Testament text, for it offers a textual “checks and balances” when comparing and contrasting the various manuscripts. For example, if one manuscript is missing a passage of Scripture, a scholar needs only to consult the numerous other copies. Alternatively, if any ancient work were to come down to us in only one copy, there would be nothing with which to compare that copy. In such a case, there would be no way of knowing whether the scribe was incompetent, for the text could not be checked against another copy.

Additional witnesses to the accuracy of the New Testament text, which are among the Greek manuscripts, are the lectionaries. The church followed the custom of the Jewish synagogue, which had a fixed portion of the law and the prophets read each Sabbath. In the same manner, Christians developed the practice of reading a fixed portion of the gospels and the New Testament letters every Sunday (and on holy days). These fixed portions are known as lectionaries. Surviving fragments of lectionaries come from as early as the sixth century AD, while complete manuscripts are dated from as early as the eighth century. Interestingly, the more than 2,400 copies of lectionaries that still exist reveal greater care in their transmission than other biblical manuscripts.

Because we possess so many manuscripts, scholars can have confidence the original biblical text has been well preserved. Consequently, translators never have to rely on blind guesses when determining what the text originally said. The text has come down to us in an accurate manner, with nothing lost in its transmission.

The Early Manuscript Dates

The amount of time that has passed between the original manuscripts and the earliest copies available is a crucial element of determining the accuracy of transmission. The time span between the date the work was originally completed and the earliest existing copy available to us is significant. Usually, the shorter the time span, the more dependable the copy. The longer the interval between the original and the copy, the more room there is for errors, embellishments, and distortions to creep in as the text is copied and recopied.

Fortunately, this time span for the New Testament manuscripts is relatively short, with the earliest manuscript copies currently ranging from 30-300 years from the original texts. In our modern culture, 30-300 years seems like a long time, but for historians of ancient literature, it is like yesterday!

The earliest New Testament manuscript fragment we possess today is the John Rylands Fragment (also called P52) contains a small portion of John 18. Most scholars date the fragment anywhere from AD 117–135, which, at its earliest, is only about 30 years removed from the original writing of the Gospel of John. The entire New Testament text is accounted for in manuscript form within 300 years of the original writing (cf. Chester Beatty Collection, Bodmer Collection, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).

Christians can truly appreciate the excellent position the New Testament occupies regarding the early dates. For the best writings of the ancient Greeks—such as Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Homer—the time span between the original writings and the earliest copies is often more than 1,000 years. In most cases, only 5 to 20 manuscripts support these ancient non-Christian works. In the case of Homer’s Iliad, the time span is about 400 years, and, as mentioned earlier, is supported by nearly 2,000 manuscripts.

A comparison with other literary works from the ancient world reveals a growing number of New Testament documents and their early dates, as well as the increasing number of manuscripts from the ancient world.

Biblical Manuscripts Compared to Selected Ancient Sources⁴

John Warwick Montgomery comments on the strong bibliographical standing the New Testament enjoys when he says, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of the classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”⁵

Another early witness to the accuracy of the New Testament text comes from the prolific writings (of more than one million quotations of Scripture) of the early church fathers. For example, seven letters have survived that were written by Ignatius (AD 70–110), and nearly every book of the Bible (except 2 John and Jude) was quoted by AD 110 by only three church fathers—Ignatius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp. In those seven letters, Ignatius quoted from 18 different books of the New Testament. Every time he cited Scripture we can observe the Greek text he was using. Consequently, the early fathers provide us with an excellent early witness to the text. For this reason, their prolific writings remain an important witness to the New Testament.

The number of quotations from the church fathers is so overwhelming that if every other source for the New Testament (Greek manuscripts and versions) were destroyed, the vast majority of the New Testament text could be reconstructed! Because of this, any impartial person cannot help but be impressed with their abundant testimony. To dismiss these areas of support would be self-defeating, for it would mean that every extrabiblical ancient work considered “reliable” by secular scholars—all of which are based on lesser evidence—would need to be brought into question.

Accurate Transmission and Variant Readings

When a manuscript(s) differs in wording from the base text, the result is known as a “variant reading.” Because of the innumerable times, the New Testament has been copied over the last 2,000 years, these variants have crept into the text. Some scholars estimate that 400,000 or more of these variants (errors) exist in the New Testament text. However, using the word error to describe these deviations from the original text can give the wrong idea and is often misleading. Technically speaking, any deviation from the base accepted text is an error, but the kinds of “errors” represented in the New Testament text are not errors of historical, geographical, spiritual, or scientific fact. Instead, they are rather trivial. Therefore, the term “variant(s)” has been employed by scholars to avoid this confusion, since misspellings, omissions, differing word orders, updated words (substitution), and additions are much different in nature than errors of fact that would threaten biblical inerrancy or the truth value of the message.

There is no doubt that the scribes who copied the texts introduced changes. These scribal changes can be broken down into two basic types: unintentional and intentional. The greatest numbers of variant readings found in the New Testament manuscripts are unintentional variants. They could creep into the text through fatigue or through faulty sight, hearing, writing, memory, or judgment on the part of the scribe. Despite these variants, Daniel Wallace of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts writes, “It is quite true that (virtually) no viable variants are major threats to inerrancy…”⁶

Other variations came about intentionally, as New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee notes.

These comprise a significant, although a much less numerous, group of errors than the unintentional changes. They derive for the most part from attempts by scribes to improve the text in various ways. Few indeed are the evidences that heretical or destructive variants have been deliberately introduced into the mss [manuscripts].⁷

Thus, the intentional variations, for the most part, were the work of scribes attempting to make the text more readable, not change the meaning. This is the important difference between updating the text (editing) and altering its meaning (redaction). The late Princetonian scholar and renown authority on New Testament textual criticism Bruce Metzger expands upon the intentional variations. He writes.

Other divergences in wording arose from deliberate attempts to smooth out grammatical or stylistic harshness or to eliminate real or imagined obscurities of meaning in the text. Sometimes a copyist would add what seemed to him to be a more appropriate word or form, perhaps derived from a parallel passage.⁸

The charge that is often made, without qualification—especially by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman—is that copyists radically changed the substance of the text. Again, the facts speak otherwise, as Michael Holmes explains: “Occasionally the text was altered for doctrinal reasons. Orthodox and heretics alike leveled this charge against their opponents, though the surviving evidence suggests the charge was more frequent than the reality.”⁹ The amount of intentional variation to the text was minimal. The text was carefully copied, and discerning Christians, who were dispersed throughout the entire Roman Empire, would have made it difficult for malicious changes to be introduced. There is simply no evidence of widespread altering of the text for doctrinal reasons. Furthermore, the variant readings, whether intentional or unintentional, exist in only a very limited portion of the New Testament.

Two of the greatest textual scholars who ever lived, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, had this to say concerning the amount of variation in the New Testament manuscripts: “If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of an article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”¹⁰

B.B. Warfield made a similar assertion when he wrote, “[The New Testament] has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, ‘The real text of the sacred writers is competently exact.’”¹¹ Textual criticism experts Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont note the following situation in which we find the text of the New Testament:

For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which text type might be favored by any critic. This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. Note…that most of the variant readings found in manuscripts of other text types are trivial or untranslatable. Only about 400-600 variant readings seriously affect the translational sense of any passage in the entire New Testament.¹²

Therefore, when all the variants of the New Testament are considered, we are dealing with only 400 to 600 variants that have any effect on the translation of the text.

What is more, church historian Phillip Schaff estimated that of the 400 variants that have affected the sense of the passages in the New Testament, only 50 of these are important.¹³ Facts like this led textual scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland to make the following observation concerning the text of the New Testament:

On the whole, it must be admitted that…New Testament specialists…not to mention laypersons, tend to be fascinated by differences and to forget how many of them are due to chance or normal scribal tendencies, and how rarely significant variants occur—yielding to the common danger of failing to see the forest for the trees.¹⁴

Whatever manuscript tradition we use as the basis for a given translation, the outcome will be substantially the same because the text is basically the same. Whether one prefers to use the Byzantine text-type, which is found in the greatest number of manuscripts, or the Alexandrian text-type, which has fewer but older manuscripts, the final result will be more or less the same. They all tell the same story! That is to say, the words (verba) may vary slightly, but the voice or meaning (vox) is the same. For example, consider the following illustration that describes the relationship between variant words and meaning:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

2. THOU HAST WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS [Notice the King James bias here]

3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000 [Notice the Southern bias here]

Observe that of the 28 letters in line two, only five of them [in bold] are the same in line three. That is, about 19 percent of the letters are the same. Yet, despite the bias, the message is 100 percent identical! The lines are different in form but not in content. Likewise, even with the many differences in the New Testament variants, 100 percent of the message comes through.¹⁵

This is a powerful illustration of why we can acknowledge that our manuscript copies contain variants and yet, at the same time, we can state with confidence that the Bible is inerrant. In other words, the words may change slightly, but the meaning is still the same. The voice of God is heard loud and clear in the text! This is seen in the Gospel of Matthew, where the author cited and made allusions to the Old Testament more than 100 times. Even in places where loose paraphrases were used, we can still recognize those allusions as Scripture.

Despite these variants, scholars have recognized the great accuracy with which the New Testament manuscripts were copied. Metzger claimed that the Hindu Mahabharata was copied at about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Iliad at about 95 percent accuracy.¹⁶ As noted in the illustration above, if 90-95 percent accuracy is achieved in the transmission process, it would be more than enough to communicate 100 percent of the original meaning of the text. Other notable Bible scholars, such as Ezra Abbot, figured the copies of the New Testament manuscripts are 99.75 percent accurate.¹⁷ Westcott and Hort calculated the New Testament’s accuracy at 98.33 percent by asserting that only one-sixteenth of variants rise above the level of trivialities.¹⁸ Greek scholar A.T. Robertson places the transmission rate at 99.9 percent accurate, believing only a thousandth part of the New Testament text was of any real concern.¹⁹ Even New Testament critic Ehrman, writes, in his Misquoting Jesus, “Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology.”²⁰

Confidence in the Research Results

Based on the various kinds of evidence, it is clear that great care was taken to accurately copy the Greek manuscripts. Thus, we can be confident that the text of the New Testament, as it stands today, is essentially the same text that was originally written by the authors of Scripture. Without any doubt, the quantity of New Testament manuscripts, the dates from the original manuscripts to the earliest copies available, and quality of the copies of the New Testament manuscripts all serve as undeniable and powerful witnesses to the accurate preservation of God’s inspired and inerrant Word.

Notes:

_{¹ This article first appeared in Joseph M. Holden, gen. ed., The Harvest Handbook of Apologetics (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2019), 191-198.}

_{² See the tally by The Institute for New Testament Textual Research and to keep updated on the ever-growing tally see the searchable database.}

_{³ See Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (Munchen, Germany: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2001), 86ff, and the more recent work by Graeme D. Bird, Multitextuality in the Homeric Iliad: The Witness of the Ptolemiac Papyri (Washington DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2010).}

_{⁴ Josh McDowell and Clay Jones, “The Bibliographical Test Updated (2014)” in Christian Research Journal.}

_{⁵ John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), 29.}

_{⁶ Daniel B. Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation” accessed on July 27, 2017.}

_{⁷ J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction To New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 66.}

_{⁸ Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (German Bible Society, 1994), 3-4.}

_{⁹ David Alan Black and David S. Dockery, eds., New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1991), 103.}

_{¹⁰ B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan, 1957), 565.}

_{¹¹ Benjamin B. Warfield, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, seventh edition (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), 14.}

_{¹² Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine/Majority Text Form (Atlanta, GA: Original Word Publications, 1991), xvi -xvii.}

_{¹³ Phillip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, (New York, NY: Publisher Not Known, 1877), 177.}

_{¹⁴ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 28.}

_{¹⁵ Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries that Confirm the Reliability of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2013), 128.}

_{¹⁶ Bruce Metzger, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), 146.}

_{¹⁷ B.B. Warfield, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886), 13-14.}

_{¹⁸ Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, and W.J. Hickie, The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: Macmillan Co., 1951), 2.2.}

_{¹⁹ A.T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), 22.}

_{²⁰ Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 55.}

***

^{Don Stewart, MA is an internationally recognized Christian apologist and speaker. He graduated cum laude from Talbot Theological Seminary and the International Seminar in Theology and Law in Strasbourg, France, as well as from Biola University. Don is also a best-selling and award-winning author/co-author of over seventy books. His various writings have been translated into over thirty different languages and have sold over a million copies. Don has traveled around the world proclaiming and staunchly defending the Christian faith. He currently hosts Pastor’s Perspective on KWVE 107.9 FM Radio.}

“The Man Who Didn’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

“I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:16).

On July 1, 2019, 20 days before his 87th birthday, we lost an eminent professor, lover of Jesus, defender of truth, brother and friend. The news of Norm’s (as he liked to be called) passing in the early morning hours rippled across the country (and around the world) with supersonic speed. Christianity Today and various outlets reported the news to a Christian world that must now get used to not having the closest thing to a living theological and apologetic encyclopedia at its disposal. I often fantasized about an electronic device that every Christian should have, that would give clear and concise apologetic answers, called the “Pocket Geisler”. Nobody should leave home without one! Though the device is but a fantasy, he has left a very real and influential legacy for the benefit of all of us. Simply put, his widespread influence and investment in the lives of his students and colleagues, his family, teaching, publishing, have made him the greatest apologist of the last half-century. His profound presence and Christlike example will be greatly missed!

Meeting Norm

After meeting Norm in 1995, when I moved from sunny Southern California to attend his seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, I quickly found out how humble and personable he was. His inviting and friendly smile and light conversation quickly dispelled any notion that Norm was a heartless and cold academician. I quickly found out he loved playing baseball, had a great arm from third base, and could run like the wind in his playing days! This was very interesting to me and caught me by surprise. I quickly shared some stories of my professional baseball playing days in Mexico. Eventually, recognizing his love for the game, I gave him a professional Louisville Slugger wood bat that had my name engraved on it, which he kept in his office ever since. But when Sunday arrived, his attention was fixed on Jesus, and his afternoons were filled with his cherished Dallas Cowboys football team. If one hadn’t known about Norm’s apologetic ministry, some could have mistakenly identified him with a sort of modern day, lighthearted, Mr. Magoo, who had no rhyme or reason for anything he did. But this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Norm’s goal was to teach teachers, equip equippers and train trainers to share the gospel and defend the Christian Faith. He meant so much to so many, equipping an entire generation of apologists, theologians, pastors and Christians with his incisive logic and clear communication that made difficult concepts much easier to understand. Because of his clarity and concise systematic content, he endeared himself to a whole generation of Christian learners and pastors around the world. Among his many students is the influential Ravi Zacharias.

Early Days and the Need for Apologetics

Norm’s love and appreciation of apologetics grew out of his many experiences. As a newly minted Christian, he spent many of his early days witnessing to the homeless and drunks in Detroit’s “skid row.” How hard can that be, right? On one such occasion, as he was sharing the gospel, an annoyed drunk stumbled up and snatched Norm’s Bible away, rebuked him and clumsily turned the pages intently searching for a particular verse. Then, pointing his boney finger to the verse, he slurred to Norm, “See, you’re not supposed to be giving the gospel. The Bible says, ‘go and tell no man.’” It was after this troubling experience that Norm recognized his need for apologetics and the choice he had to make: Either stop sharing the faith or get answers to tough questions. Thank God he chose the latter. The rest is history.

Apologetics and a Warning to Students and Scholars

Dr. Geisler loved to teach and also loved his students, often warning them as a caring father that their philosophical (worldview) assumptions will determine their theological conclusions. For Norm, the negative Bible critics and even some evangelical scholars have fallen victim to this problem. Namely, the acceptance of bad ideas and faulty methods have led to an unorthodox/heretical reading of the Scripture, which inevitably leads to error. Norm always followed his warning with the axiom, “Garbage in, Garbage out!”. As a trained philosopher, Norm was well aware that ideas have consequences, so he made it a priority in his teaching and writing to highlight the importance of good thinking and the devastating perils of faulty methods. To drive home this point, he often quoted A.W. Tozer’s familiar refrain from his Knowledge of the Holy, “What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about you.” Why? Because idols can be metal or mental, and worship can rise no higher than your concept of God. Norm’s focus on the role of worldview ideas in discovering truth gave him his drive for classical apologetics and to take seriously the apostle Paul’s warning to “beware of philosophy” (Colossians 2:9).

He viewed apologetics as having an offensive and defensive purpose. Offensively, it builds a case for the Christian Faith. Offensively, apologetics answers the crucial question: Why is Christianity true?

This offensive case is accomplished through 12 basic premises:

1. Truth about reality is knowable.

2. Opposites cannot both be true.

3. It is true that the theistic God exists.

4. Miracles are possible.

5. Miracles performed in connection with a truth claim confirm the truth of God through

a messenger of God.

6. The New Testament documents are reliable (textually and historically).¹

7. As witnessed in the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God.

8. Jesus’s claim to be God was proven by a unique convergence of miracles (e.g., the

resurrection).

9. Therefore, Jesus was God in human flesh.

10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) affirmed as true, is true.

11. Jesus affirmed that the Bible is the Word of God.

12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God, and whatever is opposed to any

biblical truth is false.

Defensively, apologetics answers any sincere objection or question about the Christian Faith. For example, when objections arise to the existence of God, they may need to first understand the absolute nature of truth. Likewise, someone who questions the resurrection needs to understand the reliability of the New Testament. To put it another way, apologetics is pre-evangelism. That is to say, it is done before evangelism if needed or when an objection or question is raised.

Use of Good Philosophy

In addition to his love for Scripture and apologetics, Dr. Geisler, while in his early 40s, earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University in Chicago. As an evangelical attending a liberal Catholic school, he found himself thinking deeply about the claims of some philosophers, and how they related to biblical statements. He recognized that while some philosophies (and philosophers) contradicted the Scriptures, others would provide useful support and clarification for Christian doctrine. Norm believed there is a difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy, and that the Scriptures command us to use our mind in worship (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37; John 4:24; 2 Corinthians 10:5) and the defense of the faith (1 Peter 3:15). Because of his love for the gospel and good philosophical reasoning, Norm was often described as a cross between Thomas Aquinas and Billy Graham.

Norm made extensive use of the works of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-1274), particularly the Summa Theologica (Bk I), Summa Contra Gentiles, On the Power of God, On Being and Essence, On the Soul, and many others. The most important topics Aquinas addressed related to apologetics include revelation, faith and reason, knowledge, reality, God, analogy (of religious language), creation, human beings, the problem of evil and ethics. On these issues, Aquinas adds significantly to a deeper understanding and better defense of the evangelical faith (see Geisler, Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal). Dr. Geisler views Aquinas’ work as helpful in building a theistic foundation for doing apologetics and supporting the classical attributes of God such as His unchangeableness, eternity, infinitude and simplicity (unity). According to Norm, a Thomistic approach is the best corrective to finite views of God such as process theology and open theism.

Professional Experience

During his nearly six decade-long ministry, Norm has debated scores of atheists and skeptics and has shared the gospel around the world. What is more, he has co-founded two graduate schools, Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte (NC) and Veritas International University in Santa Ana (CA), and has taught theology, philosophy and classical Christian apologetics on the undergraduate and graduate level at some of the most well-known seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Dallas Theological Seminary.

Though space doesn’t permit a full treatment of Norm’s professional career, there are some key highlights worthy of note. Norm began his professional career at his ordination in 1956, pastoring churches in Michigan and Illinois until 1963, and again from 2003-2007 in Charlotte, NC. His academic career began as a graduate assistant in the Bible/philosophy department at Wheaton College in 1959, but more recently he served in various capacities which include, but are not limited to: first president of Evangelical Philosophical Society (1976), President of the Evangelical Theological Society (1998), President of Southern Evangelical Seminary (1999-2006), co-founder of the International Society of Christian Apologetics (2006), President of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, (2006-2008), Distinguished Professor of Theology and Apologetics, and Chancellor of Veritas International University (2008-2019), and general editor of the Defending Inerrancy initiative (2014-2018). Though he is best known for his uncompromising defense of the Christian worldview and his many publications, his love for family and students, humility and tireless work ethic is a major part of who he is.

Many recognize Dr. Geisler from his systematic and concise writing style reflected in his 127 books on various subjects such as ethics, apologetics, philosophy, Bible and theology, many of which are used in Bible colleges and seminaries across the nation.

Biblical Inerrancy

Dr. Geisler is also recognized for his involvement in the historic International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) from 1979-1989. During his time with ICBI, he was a founding member (along with Jay Grimstead, Harold Lindsell, J.I. Packer, Greg Bahnsen, John Gerstner and R.C. Sproul), chief editor of ICBI publications and served as a framer of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH). These statements would eventually be signed by some 300 evangelical Bible scholars at the ICBI council and adopted by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) as their working definition of Biblical Inerrancy. The inerrancy issue was given priority by Dr. Geisler’s, writing prolifically on the subject and often defending this important doctrine even when it was not popular to do so (see Geisler and Roach, Defending Inerrancy; Farnell, Geisler, Holden, et. al., Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate; and Farnell and Geisler, The Jesus Quest). For Norm, Biblical Inerrancy was a conclusion flowing from a thorough examination of the Scriptures and from recognizing that God doesn’t make mistakes. His logic was as follows:

1. God cannot err.

2. The Bible is the Word of God.

3. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

More recently (2014), Norm and other evangelical scholars, established the Defending Inerrancy initiative designed to raise awareness of the troubling trend within Christian academic institutions and among evangelical scholars to drift away from biblical Inerrancy.

The Kind of Man Norm Was

The best instance to illustrate what kind of man Dr. Geisler was is his involvement in the Scopes II trial in Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1981, the Arkansas legislature enacted a law that permitted the teaching of creation science alongside evolution in public schools. You can imagine what happened next, the ACLU sued the state and subsequently brought nearly three dozen aggressive lawyers to squash the law. The Arkansas state attorney general, who was not prepared or motivated to defend the new law, called upon Norm to be the only state witness. Norm was essentially the sole defense of the new law. For weeks the ACLU lawyers tried to argue their way to victory by overwhelming Norm with questions and debate day after day for hours on end and getting nowhere, leaving the courtroom absolutely frustrated. When the ACLU sensed they were not going to defeat Dr. Geisler by argument, they chose to use his previous writings to frame him (with the help of the media) as a religious fanatic. Unfortunately, the law was reversed. Despite the outcome, Norm is a fearless individual who believes in the strength of truth even amidst overwhelming odds. We need more believers like him, who like John the Baptist, ate locusts and wild honey, wearing camel hair clothing and speaking the truth no matter what the consequences may be. This is the kind of man God used for nearly 60 years to strengthen the church, which earned him the nickname “Stormin’ Norman.”

Family

Dr. Geisler is survived by his gracious wife, Barbara Jean (married 62 years as of 2019), a graduate of Fort Wayne Bible College (Taylor University), their six children, 15 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren! We pray for Barbara and the Geisler family who are facing the loss of Norm’s profound presence with them. They are grateful for the opportunity to have enjoyed a strong and rich life in their years with such a man of God. We all take comfort knowing Dr. Geisler is in the loving arms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We will see him again!

Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26).

Notes:

¹ For detailed archaeological and textual support see Joseph M. Holden and Norman L. Geisler. The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries that Confirm the Reliability of the Scripture. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2013.

One of the earliest and most important discoveries relating to the historicity of Jesus and members of his family is the limestone bone-box (called an ossuary) made known to the public in October, 2002. Ossuaries were used by Israel from about the second century BC until the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Over ten thousand such ossuaries have been discovered but only about one hundred contain inscriptions. Of these, only two have an identification similar to the one etched in the now famous and somewhat controversial “James Ossuary.” The entire Aramaic inscription reads, “Jacob (James), son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua).

If, in fact, the inscription in its entirety is recognized as authentic (which we believe to be the case), we have clear first-century AD testimony of Jesus, his father Joseph, and brother James. James (Ya’akov) is given in the Gospel accounts as a brother of Jesus (Mt. 13:55), but he is also one of the most important figures in the New Testament. The book of Acts reveals that he was the pastor of the Jerusalem church, moderator of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, and penned the epistle of James. James is also spoken of a number of times in the writings of Josephus. He was put to death by certain Jewish leaders in AD 62, so if the James Ossuary is the one in which his bones were placed, then the dating of the bone-box would be approximately AD 62-63, allowing time for the reburial of the bones after the decomposition of the flesh, according to Jewish practices.

In December 2004, the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) and the State of Israel brought an indictment against an antiquities dealer and owner of the James Ossuary, Oded Golan, claiming that the second part of the inscription (the portion which reads “brother of Jesus”) to be a forgery. This indictment seems to have came to nothing after five years of court proceedings that concluded in March 2010 with 116 hearings, 138 witnesses, 52 expert witnesses, over 400 exhibits, and more than 12,000 pages of court transcripts!¹ According to Golan’s written summary of the trial (supported by the 474 page Hebrew language opinion handed down by Jerusalem District Court Judge Aharon Farkash on March 14, 2012), many high-level scholars with expertise in ancient epigraphy, paleography, bio-geology, and other crucial disciplines relating to examining the inscription have testified that there is no reason to doubt that the “brother of Jesus” was engraved by the same hand in the first century AD. In view of this, it is very likely that we may have a very early and important historical witness to Jesus and His family.² A summary of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the inscription is listed below.

Arguments Against Its Authenticity

1. The ossuary was not discovered in situ, within a secure archaeological context, but rather obtained through the antiquities trade.

2. Though the bone-box itself and the first half of the inscription are not contested, arguments that the second half of the inscription (brother of Jesus) was recently engraved (forged) and was not completed by the same hand have been posited due to the absence of natural occurring patina.³ (Patina is a thin layer of biogenic material expected to be present on most, if not all, ancient artifacts to some degree. It is caused by the continuous secretions and activities of micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi, algae, and yeast on the stone and inside some of its grooves. If the same consistency of patina is equally distributed on the ossuary and found within the engraved grooves, it would suggest the authenticity of the inscription. The absence of patina within the disputed portion of the inscription would suggest a forgery or modern engraving of letters.)

3. The foundation of the IAA’s case against Oded Golan was based on an eyewitness (Joe Zias, an anthropologist formerly employed by the IAA) that claimed to have previously seen the ossuary without the “brother of Jesus” portion of the inscription.

Arguments for Its Authenticity⁴

1. The size of the ossuary indicates that the bones belonged to an adult male, thus being consistent with James.

2. In 2004, while the ossuary was in IAA possession, the police (Mazap) made a silicon impression (cast) of the inscription that contaminated and mutilated the inscription. When the silicon was removed it also removed the natural occurring patina, but despite this action traces of the patina were still present in several of the letter grooves, indicating that the inscription is indeed ancient.

3. The name on the ossuary (James) reveals that the person was a male.

4. Ossuaries were only used by Jews only in the area of Jerusalem and from the end of the first-century B.C. until A.D. 70, the same time period that Josephus tells of the death of James at the hands of the Jewish religious leaders.

5. Of all those ossuaries bearing an inscription almost all speak of the deceased occupant’s father, but occasionally has the person’s brother, sister, or other close relative, if that person was well-known. The rare presence of a sibling’s name (Jesus) would indicate that Jesus was a very prominent figure.

6. Specialist and archaeologist, Prof. Kloner, dates the ossuary to between A.D. 45 – 70, and is thus consistent with the death of James in A.D. 62 according to Josephus.

7. Though the names Joseph, James, and Jesus are common names in the first-century, the combination of “James, son of Joseph” is rare and unique to this ossuary, meaning that it is highly probable that the bone-box belongs to James, Jesus’ brother even without the second half of the inscription mentioning this.

8. Prof. Camil Fuchs, head of the Statistic department at Tel Aviv University researched deceased males in Jerusalem in the first-century A.D. He concluded based on conservative estimates a growing Jerusalem population estimate (between A.D. 6-70), minus all women, minus children who will not reach manhood by time of James’ death, minus non-Jews, and considering the fame of Jesus as a brother to warrant the inscription, time of death, and literacy, that with 95% assurance there existed at the time in Jerusalem 1.71 people named James with a father Joseph and brother named Jesus!⁵

9. Golan affirms that he purchased the ossuary from an antiquities dealer who said it was found in the Silwan (Kidron Valley area) in Jerusalem. James the Just, pastor of the Jerusalem church⁶ and half-brother of Jesus⁷ was stoned and thrown from the pinnacle of the temple according to Josephus. According to Christian tradition, he was buried in a rock-cut tomb in the Kidron Valley, and one year later, in accordance with Jewish tradition, his bones were interned in an ossuary.⁸

10. Expert witnesses have confirmed that the inscription in its totality was inscribed by the same hand in the first-century, though this was a much disputed item (especially by Yuval Goren and Avner Ayalon) until experts were put under oath at trial.

11. Experts have confirmed the presence of microbial patina on the ossuary and both parts of the inscription “James, the son of Joseph” and “brother of Jesus,” demonstrating the unity and antiquity of the inscription. In addition, this patina is generally deemed ancient, without the possibility of it occurring naturally in less than 50-100 years, making a recent forgery impossible. The world’s leading expert in bio-geology and the patination process, Wolfgang Krumbeim of Oldenburg University in Germany, affirmed the patina on the ossuary and inscription most likely reflects a development process of thousands of years. He added that there is no known process of accelerating the development of patina. In addition, he concluded that the patina covering the inscription letters are no less authentic than the patina covering the surface of the ossuary (which the IAA says is authentic). Other researchers from the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto confirmed that the patina within the letter grooves is consistent with the patina on the surface of the ossuary, thus legitimizing the entire inscription’s antiquity.

12. According to expert paleographers (Andre Lemaire and Ada Yardeni) who authenticated (and dated) the inscription based on the shape and stance of the letters, the Aramaic is fully consistent with first-century style and practice.⁹ No credible challenge to their findings has yet to be published.

13. Adding the words, “brother of Jesus” is exceptional among the ossuaries found in Jerusalem.¹⁰ During the trial, it was revealed that what eyewitness (Joe Zias, who does not read Aramaic) thought he saw (i.e. James Ossuary) was actually a different (but similar) ossuary with three Aramaic inscribed names (Joseph, Judah, Hadas) known as the “Joseph Ossuary.”¹¹ Prior to rendering the final verdict by Judge Farkash, apparently Zias said to Hershel Shanks that he was “joking” when told that the “brother of Jesus” portion of the inscription was missing from the ossuary!¹²

So extensive and strong is the support for the authenticity of the ossuary and its inscription, according to Golan, Dan Bahat (the prosecutor), said in his closing arguments that the State would probably dismiss the charges that the ossuary inscription is a forgery.¹³ In fact, many of the IAA witnesses who initially claimed that the inscription was a forgery appeared to have changed their minds after closer analysis and scientific testing.¹⁴ What is more, many prosecution witnesses (witnesses for the IAA/State who argue that the inscription is a forgery) confirmed the authenticity of the inscription based upon careful analysis of the patina and the engraved inscription. The following chart offers a survey of several expert witnesses and their conclusions about the ossuary inscription.

Golan summarizes the outcome of extensive scientific tests performed on the ossuary and its inscription when he writes,

Neither the prosecution nor the IAA presented even a single witness who was an expert on ancient stone items, or patina on antiquities and who ruled out the authenticity of the inscription or any part of it. On the contrary, the findings of all the tests, including those of prosecution witnesses Goren and Ayalon, support the argument that the entire inscription is ancient, the inscription was engraved by a single person, and that several letter grooves contains traces of detergent/s that covers the natural varnish patina that developed there over centuries, and was partially cleaned (mainly the first section), many years ago.¹⁶

The apologetic and historical implications following from this ossuary are far-reaching since it informs us that: 1) James, Joseph, and Jesus have historical corroboration as individuals and a family in the first-century; 2) early Christians, like James, may have been buried according to Jewish custom; 3) Aramaic was used by early Christians; and that 4) early Christianity emerged from its Jewish roots, making it extremely difficult to divorce Christianity from its Jewishness. As such, the inscription’s primary apologetic value rests in the notion that after the most intense interdisciplinary expert scrutiny according to the rules of law, the James Ossuary is destined to be the most authenticated/scrutinized artifact in history. We now can appreciate the ossuary as an authentic artifact that provides the earliest direct archaeological link to Jesus and his family!

Copyright Joseph M. Holden, 2011, 2018. All Rights Reserved.

Sources

¹ Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions – Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses,” (March, 2011), 1. The trial was brought to an end on March 14, 2012, when Jerusalem District Court Judge, Aharon Farkash, cleared the defendants (Oded Golan, Robert Deutsch, et al.) of all forgery charges (see Judge Farkash’s 474 page opinion in the case). The clearing of the forgery charges shows that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the inscription was a forgery. As a result, there is no reason to doubt that the inscription in its entirety is an authentic description of Jesus and His family. This conclusion is supported by the dozens of expert witness named below and the script analysis offered by Andre Lemaire (Sarbonne) and Ada Yardeni (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) which gave them no reason to doubt the authenticity of the inscription. There is yet to be offered a reputable paleographical challenge to their conclusions on the matter. See James Brother of Jesus: The Forgery Trial of the Century with Hershel Shanks, editor, Biblical Archaeology Review (BAS, 2012).

² Only Protestants would consider James to be the half-brother of Jesus through Joseph and Mary, since both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy believe that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Roman Catholics consider James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels to be cousins of Jesus through the supposed brother of Joseph. On the other hand, the Eastern Church believes that James and the other siblings were stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus born to Joseph from a former wife.

³ After testing the ossuary, clay specialist, Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University, initially championed the idea that ancient patina was missing from the second half of the inscription and that the forger must have used some other bonding substance or was a result from cleaning the inscription. However, subsequent examination of the inscription by Orna Cohen of the prosecution team revealed ancient patina in the word “Jesus’, thus discrediting Goren’s testimony and led Goren to reverse his initial conclusions.

⁴ Based on court transcripts and expert testimony summarized by Oden Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary and the Jehoash Tablet Inscriptions – Summary of Expert Trial Witnesses,” (March, 2011); also see arguments for authenticity put forth in Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. New York: Harper Collins, 2003

⁵ Hershel Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Proved Ancient and Authentic” in A Biblical Archaeology Press Release (Washington D.C., June 13, 2012); Hershel Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012.

⁶ Confirmed by his role at the council of Jerusalem and the words of Eusebius.

⁷ The evidence appears clear that James was truly the half-brother of Jesus and son of Mary. The perputal virginity of Mary was not taught at the earlier periods of the church and even was rejected by Augustine. The word for brother in Greek is ἀδελφός (adelphos), while the word for cousin is ἀνεψσιός (anepsios). BDAG, 78. Louw and Nida, 118, say, “The interpretation of ἀδελφός in such passages as Mt 12.46; Mk 3.31; and Jn 2.12 as meaning ‘cousins’ (on the basis of a corresponding Hebrew term, which is used in certain cases to designate masculine relative of various degrees) is not attested in Greek nor affirm in the Greek-English lexicon edited by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Such an interpretation depends primarily on ecclesiastical tradition.” The relationship is confirmed by the second-century father Hegesippius where he distinguishes James and Jude as brothers. Moreover Jude in his letter says that he is the brother (ἀδελφός) of James. Matt 1:25 is plain that the lack of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary was only until the birth of Jesus. It was morally proper for Jewish husbands and wives to have sexual relations and bear children, in contrast to some of the extreme ideas of celibacy practiced in some segments of the patristic period. The church historian Eusebius says that James was the head of the Jerusalem church and was brother of Jesus.

⁸ Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary,” (March, 2011), 13-15.

⁹ Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012.

¹⁰ Paul L. Maier, “The James Ossuary,” Issues, Etc. https://www.mtio.com/articles/b… (last visited November 13, 2011).

¹¹ Shanks, “’Brother of Jesus’ Inscription is Authentic!” in BAR 38:04, July/August 2012; also see the record of the defense’s cross-examination of Joe Zias in the Hebrew court transcript at: https://bib-arch.org/pdf/trial-…

¹² See Strata: “Joe Zias: ‘Hershel Shanks Has No Sense of Humor’” in BAR 38:03, May/June 2012.

¹³ Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary, 13, (page 11462 of the Hebrew language court transcript).

¹⁴ This can be seen on several fronts such as comparing earlier and later court documents, and comparing the later Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary (2011) with earlier accounts of IAA witnesses recorded in Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family. New York: Harper Collins, 2003.

¹⁵ Chart is based on the summary of court proceedings offered by Oded Golan, “The Authenticity of the James Ossuary,” (March, 2011), 1-15.

¹⁶ Golan, The Authenticity of the James Ossuary, 10.

]]> https://calvarychapel.com/posts/evidencefor-the-resurrection-the-nature-of-christs-resurrected-physical-body/ Wed, 31 May 2017 07:00:00 +0000 https://calvarychapel.com/2017/05/31/evidencefor-the-resurrection-the-nature-of-christs-resurrected-physical-body/ In this final part of this series, we will discuss the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrected body. Specifically, answering the crucial questions that mark...]]>

In this final part of this series, we will discuss the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrected body. Specifically, answering the crucial questions that mark the dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy (cf. I John 4:2; 2 John 7), as well as highlighting the great benefits of Christ’s resurrection.

Was Christ’s resurrected body a spiritual (invisible) body or physical (material) body?

Some have suggested that Christ’s glorified body was spiritual (non-material) since Jesus “appeared” and “disappeared” in some post-resurrection sightings. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a spiritual resurrection but deny a physical-material resurrection.To explain the missing body, they assert the body simply dissolved into gases. However, orthodox Christianity had a radically different understanding of Christ’s resurrection.

First, from the beginning Christians held that Jesus rose in the same physical body in which he died. In fact, Jesus offered his body to be observed with the naked eye and invited others to touch Him, even eating a piece of broiled fish in the disciples’ presence (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).

Second, victory over death is only realized when the same physical body that died is the one that rose from the grave (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Simply receiving another body that is totally different (spiritual) from the one that died is certainly possible, for God can do anything, but it does not solve the problem of death nor does it offer victory, since the body that died is still dead. For Christ to have victory over death, the body must be the same physical body that died.

Third, the physical resurrection is the pattern for the believer’s resurrected body (Philippians 3:21). Paul makes clear that when believers are resurrected, Christ will transform our “lowly body” (GK: soma = body) to be conformed to His glorious “body” (GK; soma = body). In addition, when writing 1 Corinthians (15:35-55) he describes the glorified “body” (GK: soma = body) throughout the chapter as a “physical” body. Robert Gundry’s excellent book, Soma in Biblical Theology (2005), argues that every time the Greek word soma is used of a person it always refers to a physical body.

Fourth, if one believes that Christ was truly “resurrected” then he must also believe that Christ rose from the dead in a physical body. This is made clear by the fact that a resurrection only speaks to the resurrection of the body, since only the body can die. That is to say, without physical death there can be no resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:36). It makes no sense to refer to the resurrection of the spirit since the spirit never dies, it lives on after the death of the body (whether one is saved or unsaved). Thus, the spirit cannot experience a true resurrection, as does the body.

Fifth, Paul’s reference to the resurrected body as a “spiritual” body (1 Corinthians 15:44) has been understood by some as referring to the resurrection of the spirit and not to the physical body. By reminder, soma is again the word used here for “body,” so Paul is referring here to a spiritual physical body. No, this is not a contradiction in terms. For example, would we call the apostle Paul a “spiritual” man? Would we say the Bible is a “spiritual” book? Yes, they are spiritual on both accounts, despite the fact that the Bible and Paul are physical. When Paul describes the body as “spiritual,” he is not referring to the substance of the resurrection body (since it is undoubtedly physical as noted by the word soma). Rather, he is referring to the spiritual source of the physical resurrected body. In other words, our glorified body will be a spirit dominated body, driven by the Holy Spirit and not our flesh or fallen human desires.

Finally, the gospel passages that refer to Jesus appearing and disappearing are not referring to his body dematerializing and vanishing into thin air only to appear materialized again somewhere else. The Greek word used to describe these events can be better translated as moving to a place where He could be seen (or not seen), much the same way an actor can make himself visible by coming out from behind the stage curtain. Therefore, the words do not mandate a true disappearance.

Was it the same body that was in the tomb?

Some have suggested that Christ received another body that was not the same as the body that died. This problem is largely due to the passages that imply people did not recognize him after He rose from the dead. To some he appeared as a gardener (John 20:15), to others a stranger (Luke 24:18).

The short answer to the question above is “yes,” it was the same body. This is supported by the fact that Jesus possessed His crucifixion wounds (stigmata) that He put forward as evidence of his resurrection. He even invited witnesses to touch them. Yes, Christ will have his scars in heaven, but we will not. This is due to the fact that Christ’s scars are a trophy to Him and a reminder to us of His love for humanity and that these wounds made salvation possible for all of us. The stigmata is a memorial of His great love and sacrifice for us. On the contrary, we will not have our scars in the afterlife since they are due to a fallen world and sin. We will be restored to perfection.

In addition, as mentioned above, if Christ’s body is not the same that died on the cross then there is no victory over death (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-55), since the body that died is still in the grave. Further, if the body is not the same body that died, where is the deceased body of Jesus? The tomb was empty. The empty tomb is consistent with the glorified body of Jesus as being the same body that died.
What is more, the initial lack of recognition of Jesus what only temporary, which can be explained by either darkness (at the time Mary thought He was the Gardener), fear (disciples were hiding for fear of the Jewish religious leaders), Psychological trauma (disciples didn’t expect to see Jesus after he was killed, they were distraught), and false assumptions (they assumed Jesus was dead).

Finally, John 5:25-30 declares that “all who are in the graves”, which could only be referring to the bodies of deceased, since each spirit continues to live in either torment or bliss (and not in the grave). Each will hear the voice of the Son of God and come forth. This implies that the body that is in the grave will be the same body that is raised. We ought not think that Christ’s resurrection was any different. The body in the tomb was the same body that rose again.

What kinds of change occurred to the glorified body?

Paul’s description of the glorified body in 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 definitely has changes from the earthly body. What is the nature of the change?

First, the glorified body has secondary changes, not primary changes. That is to say, there is no change in who and what we are – namely, a specific person who is human. Secondary changes describe what you have, not who or what you are. For example, the body dies weak, but is raised strong; dies corruptible, but raised incorruptible; dies a natural body, but raised a spiritually dominated body; dies perishable, but raised imperishable; and dies mortal but raised immortal. If we adopt the view that primary changes (i.e., changes in who and what we are) characterize the glorified body, we are then closer to eastern reincarnation than Christian resurrection. For example, depending on what form of reincarnation one holds, an individual can return in another body that could be an animal, insect, or some other kind of being. However, Christian resurrection retains our individual identity and human nature.

Paul uses the seed analogy when he describes the glory of the resurrected body (1 Corinthians 15:36-49). In very descriptive language, Paul informs his readers that what comes from the seed (wheat or some other grain) is much more glorious than the seed itself (earthly body that dies). The glorious wheat or grain also retains the same genetic identity as the seed. Thus the resurrected body is more glorious than the earthly body as a flower or grain is more glorious than the seed from which it came. Though more glorious than the body that died, the resurrected body has same genetic identity as the seed (earthly body) sown into the ground. Thus the glorious resurrected body is the same genetic individual that died.

Does Christ still have his resurrected physical body today?

Some have suggested Christ does not have his physical body in heaven, but this view is outside the biblical descriptions that affirm His continued state in the physical body.

First, 1 John 4:2-3 offers a test for sound doctrine and how to identify false “believers.” John gives his readers a test by which to discover false prophets when he says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of anti-Christ.” Though not evident in the English, the Greek word for “has come” (in the flesh) is in the perfect tense, which refers to past completed action with abiding results in the present. Therefore, the test for orthodoxy is whether an individual believes that Christ came in the flesh (GK: sarx = flesh, rudimentary word referring to the material body) in the past and continues in the flesh (body) in the present. Since I John was written after the Christ’s resurrection and ascension into heaven, it must be referring to His first coming and his present continuation in the body in heaven.

Second, 2 John 7 reaffirms Christ’s present continuation in His body while in heaven. John identifies “deceivers” as those who “do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” Here John uses the present participle for the word “coming,” meaning the verse can be translated as those who “do not confess Jesus Christ as presently continuing in the flesh.”

Finally, the fact that Jesus will return to earth at His second coming in his physical body to the Mount of Olives is consistent with Jesus retaining his body in heaven today. The angels spoke at His ascension and said Jesus would return in like manner he ascended to heaven – namely, visibly and bodily! There is no logical reason to reject Christ’s bodily continuation today if he rose from the grave in the body, ascended to heaven in His body, conforms us to the likeness of His body, and returns to the earth in His body. To deny the continued physicality of Christ is a form of post-resurrectional Docetism (ancient heresy that denies the material humanity of Christ).

Conclusion

The resurrection has always been the capstone in the arch of Christianity. It’s a stone that is well-placed and firmly rooted in its fixed foundational position. It is because Jesus rose from the grave we can rest assured we will rise in due time and have all the physical and spiritual benefits our Lord possesses. We have a bright future, for He too was a man – who loved all mankind and desires all to be saved (1 Peter 3:9).

Also, enjoy the first two parts of this three-part series:

“Evidence for the Resurrection: Is Easter Just More of the Same?”

“Evidence for the Resurrection: Was It Real?”

]]> https://calvarychapel.com/posts/evidence-for-the-resurrection-was-it-real/ Fri, 19 May 2017 07:00:00 +0000 https://calvarychapel.com/2017/05/19/evidence-for-the-resurrection-was-it-real/ In an earlier post, we discussed Christ’s resurrection as an unique event that differs in kind from all other ancient near eastern myths of dying...]]>

In an earlier post, we discussed Christ’s resurrection as an unique event that differs in kind from all other ancient near eastern myths of dying and rising fertility gods. In this section, we address two crucial questions: 1) What about the skeptics? 2) Was Christ’s resurrection a historical event? Our answers to these questions have a direct impact upon the believability of Christianity as a whole, since it is the heart of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). It is a condition of salvation (Romans 10:9-10), and there is no hope without it (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

What About the Skeptics?

Over the centuries, there have been several influential attempts to discredit the resurrection without success. Some believed (H.E.G. Paulus, Life of Jesus) Jesus never died on the cross but fainted and later revived in the cool tomb to live another day (i.e., known as the Swoon Theory). For Christians, the death of Christ is a prerequisite for a resurrection. However, this theory should be rejected, since it fails to recognize the physical condition of Christ and ignores the eyewitness accounts that confirm Christ’s death on the cross. First, Jesus was beaten and whipped, crowned with thorns, beard plucked from His face, did not have the strength to carry the cross to Golgotha.

His hands and feet were nailed to the cross, as crucifixion caused lungs to collapse; His side was pierced by a roman spear. Blood and water flowed from His side, which is evidence of death. Witnesses confirmed Christ’s death; His corpse was wrapped in 75 pounds of material, and the Romans pronounced Him dead and set an official seal on a guarded tomb.

What is more, medical experts confirmed Jesus’ death in the Journal of American Medical Association. They analyzed the data surrounding Christ’s crucifixion and concluded that “the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge” (3/21/86, p. 1463). Second, the Swoon Theory does not account for the radical conversion of the disciples. Moreover, even the ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote of Christ being put to death in Judea during the reign of Tiberius Caesar by the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. Further, the Jewish Talmud declares that Christ was put to death by being hung on a tree on the “eve of Passover.”

Others explain the resurrection by positing that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This view is known as the “Conspiracy Theory” and is perhaps the most ancient of all, being devised by the chief priests and the elders to explain away the resurrection (Matthew 28:12-13). There are several reasons why it should be rejected. First, stealing the body and deceiving to cover the crime runs contrary to the character and teaching of Christ and the apostles. Second, it is contrary to the apostles’ willingness to die for their belief in the resurrection. People do not give their lives for what they know to be a lie. Third, even after persecution, there is no record of anyone recanting their message. Fourth, it doesn’t seem rational to believe such critics of the resurrection such as Saul, James (the Lord’s brother), and doubting Thomas could be fooled without strong evidence to overcome their ardent skepticism. Fifth, the body of Christ could have easily been produced to refute the resurrection claims, but apparently, it was not displayed. Sixth, there is no evidence to support the disciples stole the body. Seventh, the Romans had no motive to steal the body, since this would surely disrupt the peace they sought to maintain among the tense and volatile population. Eighth, the Jews had no motive to steal the body, since this would run contrary to there desire to keep Jesus in the tomb to avoid resurrection claims. Finally, this theory does not explain the physical appearances of Christ or the eyewitness claims of the resurrection.

Any theory of the resurrection must account for these 12 commonly accepted facts (among all scholars) surrounding the event:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion.
2) Jesus was buried.
3) Disciples doubted and despaired.
4) The tomb, in which Jesus was buried, was discovered empty a few days later.
5) Disciples had experiences that they believed to be actual appearances of the risen Christ. 6) Disciples were transformed and willing to die for the truth.
7) The gospel message was the center of preaching in the early church.
8) The gospel was proclaimed in Jerusalem where Jesus died.
9) The church was established by these disciples.
10) The day of worship was Sunday, the same day Jesus was reported risen.
11) Skeptical James (Jesus’ brother) was converted when he believed he saw the risen Christ.
12) Paul, a persecutor of the church, was converted when he believed he saw the risen Christ.

For too long, many have attempted to work outside of these known facts, like the swoon and conspiracy theories, to their own peril.

Was the Resurrection a Real Historical Event?

Contrary to these skeptical claims, there are several reasons to believe the resurrection of Christ is a historical event.
First, the New Testament stands the most reliable source of information on the resurrection from any book in the ancient world. Though the originals have been lost to time, the NT contains the most manuscript attestation to the history it records (28,000+ copies in various languages, over 5,800 of these are in the Greek language), the earliest records of the resurrection (25-150 year gap from the time they were written), and the most accurately copied manuscripts of any book from the ancient world (99.9% copy accuracy). The early dates and sheer manuscript quantity prohibits myth, distortion and embellishment to filter into the history recorded in the NT text.

The basic books of the NT were written by AD 65 (with exception of the Gospel of John and Revelation), meaning there was simply no time for myth to replace the basic facts of the resurrection.

Even the Greek historian, Herodotus, said that it takes at least 80 years for a myth to develop! Near eastern scholar, P.J. Wiseman, claims that one generation is not enough time for a myth to develop. The vast majority of the NT was written within 25-30 years from the death and resurrection of Christ! The witnesses would still be alive to correct any misconceptions to the basic facts surrounding the resurrection.

Second, Jesus appeared to eyewitnesses on at least 12 different occasions, with Paul declaring some 500 witnesses saw the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8). These appearances resulted in witnesses seeing, hearing and/or touching his physical body. The commonly understood and well-practiced legal approach to establishing fact draws upon the testimony of numerous witnesses of any given event. Even the Scripture says, “On the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deuteronomy 19:15). The NT has nine different authors (if someone other than Paul wrote Hebrews), who wrote 27 books that either explicitly or implicitly affirm the resurrection.

Third, the best explanation for the empty tomb that was guarded and sealed is that Christ rose! Fourth, the apostles died for what they believed to be the resurrected Christ. Fifth, the widespread, sudden and dramatic change in the lives and religious practice of devoted Jews who kept the Mosaic Law for centuries. In other words, how do fervent religious Jews suddenly shift from Saturday to Sunday worship and from abstaining from unclean foods to eating pork with gentiles? What possibly could transform a group of disappointed and afraid disciples who were devastated at the crucifixion, in hiding for fear of death, contemplating a rapid escape and/or abandonment of their calling and return to their former activities, into the most prolific missionary movement of all time? The resurrection would have the power to do just that and provide the crowning proof that Jesus was indeed the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

Sixth, well-known skeptics and attorneys have found the eyewitness testimonies of Christ convincing and reliable. These include the late Harvard University law professor and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidences (1853), Simon Greenleaf, who penned The Testimony of the Evangelists, Thomas Sherlock (The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection), Frank Morrison (Who Moved the Stone?), John W. Montgomery (Christianity and History), Irwin Linton (A Lawyer Examines the Bible), investigative journalist and skeptic, Lee Strobel (The Case For Christ) and David Limbaugh (Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel). In addition, reputable modern historians of ancient history such as A.N. Sherwin-White (Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT) and Colin J. Hemer (The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History) have affirmed the historical reliability of the NT.

Finally, the presence of counter-productive features, within the gospel accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ, further demonstrates its reliable history. That is to say, the mere presence of statements that do not cast Christ or His followers in a positive light suggests truthfulness. For example, the gospels reveals Christ’s humiliating trial, shameful death at the hands of His persecutors. Christ appeared powerless to effect change, while the disciples hid in fear and appeared cowardice, with lack of strength to carry His own cross. Those closest to Jesus betrayed and denied Him; the disciples were slow in understanding, and they did not believe. After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared first to women who had little legal standing and credibility in the eyes of their culture and law. According to historians, these crucial features reveal that the writers of the NT were more interested in reporting accurate history than deceiving their readers by painting a flawless portrait Christ and His followers.

We have seen that we have good reason to believe the resurrection of Christ is a historical event.

Attempts to explain the resurrection away fails to account for all the data and leaves irreconcilable flaws in their argument. We will discuss further of the nature and significance of Christ’s resurrected body. Was it a spiritual or physical body? Was it the same body that was in the tomb? What kinds of changes occurred to His resurrected body? Does Christ still have His physical body today?

]]> https://calvarychapel.com/posts/evidence-for-the-resurrection-is-easter-just-more-of-the-same/ Sun, 05 Apr 2015 07:00:00 +0000 https://calvarychapel.com/2015/04/05/evidence-for-the-resurrection-is-easter-just-more-of-the-same/ It has been said that “the resurrection of Christ is the capstone in the arch of Christianity, if it is removed Christianity crumbles.” Indeed, Paul...]]>

It has been said that “the resurrection of Christ is the capstone in the arch of Christianity, if it is removed Christianity crumbles.” Indeed, Paul warned of the negative implications if Christ did not rise from the dead, namely, we are still in our sins, our faith is empty, those who have died have perished forever, and we are men most miserable (1 Cor. 15:16-19). That the resurrection is the core of the Christian faith cannot be denied and that of nearly twenty sermons in the book of Acts feature the resurrection of Christ as the central message. Despite the importance of the resurrection as the heart of the gospel message (Rom. 10:9-10), some have mistakenly understood this crucial event as an hallucination or more of the same kind of dying and rising gods present in cultures throughout the ancient Near East.

The Resurrection as Hallucination?

Hallucinations describe the psychological state of seeing things that appear real but do not actually exist. Some have argued that the disciples’ intense grief and wishful thinking for their crucified Savior triggered these hallucinatory episodes known as “appearances.” Instances of hallucinations among some of the world’s religions certainly do occur, but usually they are either initiated by drugs or other techniques designed to induce an altered state of consciousness. However, there are several reasons to reject the hallucination theory. First, there is no evidence of drug use or technique-induced altered states of consciousness among Christ’s disciples, which is totally foreign to Judaism and to Christianity. Second, hallucinations are generally experienced by individuals and not mass groups. Paul said at least 500 witness had seen the risen Christ (1 Cor.15:6). Third, hallucinations last only short periods of time (seconds or minutes), not for forty days of physical appearances (Acts 1:3). If it was a hallucination, it was the largest in recorded history and lasted longer than any other hallucination! Fourth, the disciples did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead and, therefore, could not be projecting wishful thinking which could lead to hallucinations of His resurrection appearances. In fact, in several of Christ’s post-resurrectional appearances He was not immediately recognized which eliminates any “thought/psychic projection” of His appearance. Finally, the disciples who were depressed after Christ’s death were initially skeptical to believe the women’s report of the resurrection, suggesting that wishful thinking was not present.

The Resurrection as Legendary?

Some have attempted to identify the resurrection as legend or mythical storytelling not uncommon to the cultures of the ancient Near East. According to some, Christ’s resurrection story is similar to the Egyptian Osiris myth or the Mesopotamian stories of dying and rising fertility gods (e.g., Tammuz). However, these arguments have been met with strong criticism. First, the parallel stories only have superficial similarities. For example, none of these rising gods actually come back to life and walk the surface of the earth in the body that died and was buried, nor are witnesses involved that confirm a Christ-like physical resurrection. Second, the textual support for such legendary “resurrections” is scant or altogether absent and must be stretched to resemble anything like the Bible’s account of the resurrection and afterlife. In the case of Tammuz-Adonis, early texts do not have any trace of a resurrection account, they only appear some 150-300 years after Christ. This has led some to believe that the Tammuz story was actually influenced by the resurrection of Christ, and was reinterpreted in light of the success early Christianity was having by preaching the resurrection! Third, some (Roland de Vaux and Edwin Yamauchi) have pointed out that the apparent “resurrection” of the Egyptian Osiris was not really a Judeo-Christian resurrection at all. Rather, Osiris simply was enabled to live an afterlife among the dead as close to an earthly existence as possible. In other words, Osiris never came back to life in his physical body to live on earth again, but was only allowed to reign over the dead in an earth-like afterlife. Fourth, those who see parallels between many of the early mystery religions such as the Persian Mithra, which was popular among Roman soldiers, and Taurobolium ignore the late dates for sources or turn a blind eye to their textual provenience. The notions of “rebirth,” blood sacrifice, and eternal life emerged in the second to fourth-century AD and were most likely influenced by Christianity (see Ronald Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks). Finally, these myths and mysteries are not rooted in any time-space historical person or foundational historical event. By contrast, Christianity rests upon the historical Christ and His physical resurrection from the dead.

Resurrection of the Body Foreign to Ancient Cultures?

While surveying the climate of how ancient cultures viewed the afterlife, one is immediately struck by the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian concept of the hereafter. The Egyptians seemed to be semi-optimistic regarding the afterlife, but never offered bodily resurrection as an option; largely, Egyptian notions of afterlife centered in the realm of the dead and was somewhat shadowy. For the ancient Egyptian, the end and hope for afterlife resides in the necessity of a mummified body. For the Mesopotamians, according to Yamauchi, pessimism and gloom dominated their view of the afterlife. Any thought of raising the dead was a threat or curse to be avoided. For the Greeks, despite Plato’s belief in the immortality of the soul (his student Aristotle rejected immortality), most were skeptical of an afterlife even though scant ideas circulated among the poets and later philosophers. The prevailing view among the Greeks regarding the body was negative. The Greek attitude toward a resurrection can be seen in Acts 17:18, 32, while Paul was in Athens. The apostle Paul spoke of the resurrection, something novel to the Greeks. He eventually was met with skepticism and mockery. For the Greeks, the body was a hindrance to progress and the life of the mind, so any notion of being physically resurrected was summarily ridiculed.

Unique Judeo-Christian Belief in the Resurrection of the Body

When set in contrast against the dark and pessimistic backdrop of the ancient Near East and Greek notions of the afterlife, the Judeo-Christian concept of a physical resurrection of the body was a unique contribution (Dan. 12:2) to ancient Near Eastern views. Early Israelites most likely understood the concept of resurrection slowly over time, and certainly were slow to realize that the Messiah would be resurrected. But the New Testament changed all this by the end of the first-century AD by clearly articulating the nature of Christ’s resurrection in light of Old Testament passages and His teachings recorded in the Gospels. Christ’s resurrection would forever change the religious landscape and frame the discussion of the afterlife in terms that now include the physical body. It only remains now in Part II to discuss whether the resurrection of Christ actually occurred as well as the nature of Christ’s glorified body.

]]>