Skilled in the word of Righteousness (Hebrews 5:13) Part 16

SKILLED IN THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (Hebrews 5:13)

Part 16

Written by Yeow Chin Kiong

The reliability of a written document subjected to the INTERNAL EVIDENCE Test depends on whether or not it contains eyewitness testimony which has withstood the scrutiny of others, especially disinterested people. The eyewitnesses must claim that they were eyewitnesses (e.g. 2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4) or were identified as eyewitnesses of an event by those who knew them (Luke 1:1-4). Such were the apostles and disciples of Jesus, some of whom kept written records of what they witnessed for others to believe (John 20:30-31). Also, it would help if there were in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses those who were known to be the opponents of the eyewitnessed who would,- if they could,- point out the lie or unreliability of what the eyewitnesses recorded.

It also attests to the trustworthiness of the eyewitnesses and reporters if they identified others around them who had reason to oppose them or at least refute their testimony BUT DID NOT do so. To be sure, Jesus’ apostles and disciples had very harsh and determined detractors among the Jews of their day. In fact, these enemies of Jesus would have certainly refuted, and put a negative slant to, the words and works of Jesus if they could,- and they did try (eg. Matthew 9:34; 12:23-24), even as far as resorting to bribery to cast the Lord’s resurrection in bad light (Matthew 28:12-15). But they did not persist in the early days of Christianity because the eyewitnesses of what had actually transpired were still alive to refute them.

That the earliest Christians could, at any time, be refuted by their contemporaries if there was a convincing case AGAINST the gospels writers’ account of what Jesus did and especially His resurrection, yet were not thus refuted speaks much about them as eyewitnesses of truth. Indeed, many of the earliest Christians withstood torture rather than renounce or repudiate their testimony and beliefs. People may be prepared to die for what they wrongly believe to be true but certainly not for what they believe to be false!

The third step in proving a written testimony to be reliable is to subject its contents to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE Test. In a sense, this test is, as they say, “where the rubber meets the road.” As Jesus Himself has said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). The INTERNAL EVIDENCE Test looks at the writings themselves (eg. the four gospels and Acts) to detect signs of their writers’ honesty and competence in conveying truth. The EXTERNAL Test looks OUTSIDE the writings (to writings of non-Biblical history) and to artifacts (to ancient objects dug up by archaeology like coins and entire towns) to determine whether the writings record the truth about people, places, things and events in the past which they also record.

The logic of this test is that if it is proven from secular history and archaeology that the four gospel and Acts locate their accounts of Jesus within the context of actual people, places, things and events, their record about Jesus not elsewhere in secular writings written about Him is also probably true. This reasoning takes into account that Jesus was born at a particular place and time (see Galatians 4:4) when certain individuals identified by name were in authority (eg. Luke 1:5-8 about the parentage of John, who would herald Jesus’ first coming; Luke 2:1-8 about Jesus’ birth). Jesus’ travels during His short ministry to places in Roman-administered Palestine can be plotted on a map of His time by the place-names of cities, towns and geographical features recorded in the four gospels. Most important, the persons in political and religious authority who had a hand in Jesus’ crucifixion are identified by name in the gospels and Acts and also confirmed by archaelogy and secular history.

It makes no sense and is self-defeating to include so many named, actual people, places, things and events peculiar to a particular time and place expecting future readers NOT to check for their truth and veracity. And, it is unfair to reject certain parts of a writing (eg. the gospels’ miracles of Jesus and the apostles or the resurrection) as prima facie untrue when the contextual elements in the same writings are proven true.