Internal Evidence Test for the Reliability of the New Testament

Benefit of the Doubt

Regarding the internal evidence test, John Warwick Montgomery reports that literary critics still follow Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.” (Montgomery, EA, 29)[1]

Is the Document Free from Known Contradictions?

As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself— or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion. (Archer, NIEBD, 12)[2]

Principles of Interpreting Ancient Literature

The allegations of error in the Bible are usually based on a failure to recognize basic principles of interpreting ancient literature. Such principles can help one discern whether there is truly an error or contradiction in the literature— in this case, the Bible. For a description of seventeen principles for resolving seeming contradictions in Scripture, see chapter 26, “Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament.”[3]

The New Testament Writers Were Eyewitnesses to Events

They Describe

The writers of the New Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from first-hand information. The books of the New Testament make claims in seven places.[4]

Undesigned Coincidences

Reviving the work of Christian writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, philosopher Lydia McGrew shows that the reliability of the Gospels is supported by what is known as the argument from undesigned coincidences.[5]

Summary of the Internal Evidence Test

Skeptics have also doubted that the apostles could have remembered the events accurately. Bauckham has noted nine features of events that are best remembered. Overall, the Gospels fit these categories well, which increases our confidence that the traditions have been preserved reliably. (Bauckham, JE, 341– 346) • Unique or unusual events. The gospel stories clearly fit this category, as many of the events, such as healings and exorcisms, are unmistakably unusual. • Salient or consequential events. Gospel stories often involve landmark or life changing events that would create vivid memories in people who witnessed them. • An event for which a person is emotionally involved. The gospel writers were not dispassionate observers, but were personally invested and emotionally involved in the events themselves. They were deeply affected by the events. • Vivid imagery. The gospel stories have little vivid imagery. Mark tends to have more than the other gospels, but it is difficult to know if this imagery is the result of Mark being close to the events or being a good storyteller. • Irrelevant details. There are some irrelevant details in the Gospels, but most details have been preserved because of their significance and memorability. However, as Bauckham notes, the lack of irrelevant details is not evidence against eyewitness provenance. • Point of view. People remembering events and stories often switch point of view in how they tell the story. And this occurs regularly in the Gospels. The gospel of Mark, for instance, does this to show that Mark is preserving the eyewitness testimony of Peter. • Dating. People typically remember details about events, such as location, actions, time of day, emotions, and persons involved, but dates are not common. The Gospels fit this characteristic of memory, in which the recorded events only include indications of dating for specific reasons. • Gist and details. The overall gist of a memory is likely to be accurate, even if details vary. We see this pattern in the Gospels (e.g., Matt 26: 58, 69– 75; Mark 14: 54; Luke 22: 54– 62; John 18: 15– 18, 25– 27). • Frequent rehearsal. Stories that were told frequently were more likely to become standardized in a certain form and better remembered. As Bauckham notes, we can be sure the apostles told the stories of Jesus frequently after the events.[6]

• External Evidence Test for the Reliability of the New Testament

After many years of careful study, Ravi Zacharias concludes by noting not only the variety, quantity, and elapsed time between the gospel events and the manuscripts, but also the range of documents that could support or challenge the scriptures— in short, those written from an external perspective: “In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity.” (Zacharias, CMLWG, 162)[7]

Supporting Evidence from Early Christian Writers Who Quote or Paraphrase the Bible [8]

1. Eusebius

2. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons

3. Clement of Rome

4. Ignatius

5. Polycarp

6. Tatian

Eight Different Tests for the Accuracy of the New Testament Accounts

When Lee Strobel set out to discover the truth about Christianity, he met with New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, an expert on the biographies of Jesus. Having completed a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, Strobel wanted to see if the biographies of Jesus stand up against scrutiny, in the same way an attorney would evaluate the story of a defendant on trial. One by one, they applied the eight different tests.[9]

The intention test

The ability test

The character test

The consistency test

The bias test

The cover-up test

The corroboration test

The adverse witness test

Early Non-Christian Confirmation of New Testament History[10]

1. Tacitus
2. Suetonius
3. Josephus
4. James the Brother of Jesus
5. John the Baptist
6. Jesus

Archaeology Helps Confirm the Historicity of the Bible

1. Journey of a Skeptical Archaeologist[11]
2. Archaeology Supports the Amazing Accuracy of Luke’s Gospel[12]
3. Archaeology Supports the Reliability of the Book of Acts and the Epistles[13]

1. Earliest Records of Christianity[14]
2. The Pavement[15]
3. The Pool of Bethesda[16]
4. The Nazareth Decree[17]
5. Yehohanan— A Crucifixion Victim[18]
6. The Pilate Inscription[19]
7. The Erastus Inscription[20]
8. New Testament Coins[21]

• Conclusion

“One of the classic scholars writing about the authenticity of the New Testament was F. F. Bruce, quoted extensively throughout this chapter. He opens his study The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? with these comments: The Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. . . . And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption, God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. . . . Christianity has its roots in history. . . . This historical once-forallness of Christianity . . . makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of first-rate importance. (Bruce, TNTD, 7– 8)[22]

If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity.[23]

[1] McDowell, Josh; McDowell, Sean. Evidence That Demands a Verdict (p. 127). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid, 128-129

[3] Ibid, 129-130

[4] Ibid, 130

[5] Ibid, 131

[6] Ibid, 137-138

[7] Ibid, 138

[8] Ibid, 138-139

[9] Ibid, 144

[10] Ibid, 150-152

[11] Ibid, 153

[12] Ibid, 154

[13] Ibid, 155

[14] Ibid, 158

[15] Ibid, 158

[16] Ibid, 159

[17] Ibid, 159

[18] Ibid, 159

[19] Ibid, 159

[20] Ibid, 160

[21] Ibid, 160

[22] Ibid, 161-162

[23] Ibid, 162