Skilled in the word of righteousness (Hebrews 5:13) Part 15

Written by: Yeow Chin Kiong

The first step in proving the historical reliability and truthfulness of the contents of a surviving manuscript is to subject that manuscript to the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL Test.

The first step in proving that the contents of the four gospels and the book of Acts contain reliable historical records requires subjecting their available copies of manuscripts to the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL Test. This test butresses our belief that these copies were in circulation among the churches at the end of the first century AD. This necessarily implies that the original manuscripts written by the Divinely-inspired authors (from which subsequent copies were made) were recorded during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the life, works, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ,- too short a time for unchallenged myths about our Lord to be written. The BIBLIOGRAPHICAL perspective also evidences that there were very many copies of manuscripts,- sufficient for us to compare and contrast between them to arrive at a reasonable text if their contents varied.

Indeed, a case for the four gospels and Acts to have been originally authored before 70 AD may be made by the fact that the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in that year is not recorded in all the five books. This low point in Jewish history had, after all, been prophesied by Jesus just before His crucifixion at about 33 AD (Matthew 23:37 to 24:35; Mark 13:1-31 and Luke 21:5-28). The actual fulfillment of that specific prophecy in the 70 AD would certainly have be written about in the gospels to prove Jesus was a real prophet whose prophecies came true, but was not thus recorded simply because the fall of Jerusalem had not happened when the gospels were originally authored before 70 AD.

However, proving that the available manuscripts were copies of original records written by authors who were eyewitnesses to historical events about Jesus Christ DOES NOT yet necessarily imply that the authors can be trusted as writers of the truth of what they had witnessed. To prove they did not make up myth about what they actually witnessed and recorded in writing fictional material, we need to subject the CONTENTS of the manuscripts to the INTERNAL EVIDENCE Test (asking “Can we trust what they authors wrote?” and “Were the authors competent and honest?”) as well as to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Test (asking “Does evidence from outside the contents of the manuscript support what those contents record?”).

The second step in proving the reliability of the four gospels and Acts is to subject them to some INTERNAL tests of truth-telling. Firstly, no author would include details which embarrass themselves or those whose cause they are promoting so as to put them all in negative light UNLESS THOSE DETAILS WERE TRUE AND THE AUTHORS WERE COMMITTED TO RECORDING ALL TRUTH! That the four gospels and Acts contain accounts which embarrass Christians (like the apostle Peter’s blatant and repeated denial that he knew Jesus [Matthew 26:31-35, 69-75; Mark 14:27-31, 66-72; Luke 22:31-34. 54-62; John 13:37-38; 18:15-17, 25-27] and the disciples fleeing in fear after Jesus’ arrest [Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50-52]). If a writer has shown that he would not lie even if relating a truth which would embarrass him and his friends, he would certainly not lie over other matters even if telling the truth would harm him.

Secondly, if more than one writer recording as eyewitnesses of a similar incident recorded it with discrepant (i.e. differing) details, but the discrepancy can reasonably be resolved by considering the eyewitnesses had different perspectives, at least it proves there was no collusion between them, like there was a conspiracy to appear in agreement. A case to point is the alleged contradiction some see between the four accounts of the number of angels seen by Jesus’ women disciples when they visited His tomb on the first day of the week. right after His death and burial.

We have four separate recorded accounts of the incident: Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-10 and John 20:1-14. Of course. there would have been a “contradiction” between the four accounts if, and only if, one or more accounts recorded that the women met angels but at least one of the accounts recorded specifically that the women met NO ANGEL at all then. The mere apparent discrepancy (NOT “contradiction”) in the number of angels (including men garbed in white) can be reconciled thus: Matthew’s account only relates what happened OUTSIDE the tomb, where Mary Magdeline and another disciple named Mary encountered one angel who told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew did NOT say there was only one angel around but he did record that the single angel the women met outside the tomb invited them to have a look inside the tomb, saying “come, see the place where the Lord lay” (Matthew 28:6). Matthew relates nothing about the women entering the tomb and whom they met in it. Mark’s account continues where Matthew’s left the women by relating that IN THE TOMB (Mark 16:5) the women met a man dressed in white who told them Jesus had risen. This “man” was not the angel the women met outside the tomb which Matthew related about. Like Matthew. Luke and John also do not record this meeting of the women with the man in white INSIDE the tomb. Luke records the women going into the tomb but does not necessarily describe the man inside the tomb as Mark did. Luke merely records that some women disciples (and not just the two Marys; see Luke 23:55 to 24:1, 9-10) encountered two men who stood by them in shining garment who told the women that Jesus had risen. Luke does not specify where the women were when they encountered the two “men”: inside the tomboutside as they exited the tomb or outside the tomb after they exited it. John is silent about the two Marys and their having met the “men”: outside the tomb before they entered it, in the tomb or outside the tomb after they exited it. John merely relates that on the first day of the week after Jesus’ crucifixion, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, only to find it opened. She ran to Peter and another disciple (presumably John) and told them that Jesus’ body had been removed. Mary followed the two disciples back to the tomb and upon checking the empty tomb the three believed that Jesus’ body had been taken away (NOT risen from the dead! See John 20:2-9). The two male disciples left Mary weeping outside the tomb who, upon looking inside the tomb, saw two angels sitting where the body of Jesus had laid. Then, outside the tomb, she met the risen Jesus who told her He was yet to be ascended to the Father. Mary returned to the disciples and related that she had seen the risen Jesus and told them what He had said to her.

We note that in the understandable confusion of the disciples, the fast-paced sequence of what happened at the tomb on the Sunday after Jesus’ resurrection, as told by the records of four different writers, including an eyewitness (John, the “other disciple” besides Peter), can be reasonably arranged so as to resolve any apparent discrepancy. The composite written testimony of the events which transpired at Jesus’ empty tomb on that Sunday bears characteristics of trustworthiness and reliability, as do the rest of the New Testament historical writings when subjected to similar handling according to the INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST.