How can we trust the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles ?

Objection

I really have one prevailing issue with regard to the bible. I’m supposed to believe that they not only got it right, but that they also didn’t embellish. I don’t know anyone who can relay a story from last week with reasonable accuracy on a regular basis without tainting things with their own bias, and/or just forgetting stuff. But when it comes to things guys were documenting – knowing full well that they wanted people to believe certain things, I’m supposed to believe that they not only got it right and that they also didn’t embellish. And we’re talking about stuff that happened several thousand years ago, and has been translated numerous times (inserting more bias/fallibility, ect.) 

Response

You can’t prove or disprove things that have happened in the past. It’s not a matter of proving. It is a matter of looking at evidence with an open mind and letting it lead you to a conclusion. Using the scientific method, we gain information from observable empirical evidence, but history is much different. It can’t be observed. Evidence is presented in a court room and a judge lets it lead him to a decision. The problem is not the accuracy of documents, but rather a prejudice against the supernatural

We get ancient history through ancient manuscripts. Historians look at the date, distribution of the manuscripts and possible motives for writing them. Did the people writing the documents have a biased motive? Were they getting paid to write? If you are hired by the Emperor to write the history about Rome and events that surround him, you may wanna leave out some information about him, otherwise he might kill you. Of course, it is what the early church left in that got them killed. If you tell your high school history teacher, “I don’t believe this info about Caesar and the Gallic wars, because this was passed down from generation to generation and copies of copies of copies can’t be trusted, ” and write that as an answer to the test he gives you, you will probably get a big fat F.

Although this history was written in the first century, the manuscripts wore out and had to be copied again and again. So today we have manuscripts of Roman history about Caeser, dating back to 900AD. The war took place 58BC to 51BC. 900 years is a big gap. But historians trust the manuscript. Tacitus is also quoted as truth in high schools and colleges based on copies of copies of copies. The manuscripts we have date 900AD-1100 AD. We have hundreds of fragments of 4 detailed accounts of Jesus that were found throughout the ancient world and even as far as Egypt, the earliest dating 135 AD. But why aren’t they trusted? Secular historians WISH they had the quality and number of manuscripts for history that the New Testament has.

Why didn’t writers of the gospels leave out the stuff that got them killed? Ten disciples were killed and one (John) exiled to the isle of Patmos. Certainly terrorists die for what they believe to be true as we saw in 911, but nobody dies for what they KNOW to be a lie. Either Jesus rose from the dead or He didn’t. I wouldn’t die for a lie. 

Romans 5:7

For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.

The New Testament is a set of ancient historical documents. The Gospels are biographies of Jesus’ adult life. They are the earliest and most reliable records. All of the New Testament gospels were written in the 1st century. People in the 1st century valued eyewitness testimony. From the 2nd century on, it was important to the early church fathers that the people who alleged to have written the gospels actually wrote them and that they were eyewitnesses of the things they wrote. So writings that later contradicted the eyewitness accounts of the Apostles would never make it into the bible.

Not only were the Gospels written remarkably close to the actual events, but there were still eyewitnesses around who could be questioned to verify the facts. During this time there was no disagreement. The followers of Jesus and the enemies of Jesus testified to the events that took place.

It’s hard to put ourselves in the ancient world because we live in the age of modern media. It wasn’t a print based culture. The only way of preserving information was through oral tradition, most of which was memorized. Jewish rabbis were the chief religious officials of synagogues, trained usually in a theological seminary and ordained. They delivered sermons at religious services and performed ritualistic, pastoral, educational, and other functions. Young rabbis were often forbidden to comment on passages of scripture until they had memorized it perfectly. It was not uncommon for rabbis in Jesus’ time to commit the entire Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy) to memory. So the whole idea that this can be compared to the whispering game is a bad analogy. The whispering game is when you whisper something into someone’s ear and then they whisper the same thing into another person’s ear and it passes through ten people. By the time the last person tells it, it is totally different from what the first person said. The Apostles were deeply concerned about getting this information out truthfully that they were willing to die for it. And if they were willing to die for it, post-modern Christians should be willing to speak out against lies that religious leaders try to slip into essential Christian doctrine. Oral tradition was a community event. A story is passed down by individual within a community. If one person told a story a little bit off, others would correct him. It is a reliable self-correcting system. Studies have been done on oral cultures which reveal that stories can be passed on through several generations accurately.

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

* Mark and Luke wrote their Gospels based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Mark was converted by Peter and was an evangelist who traveled with the Apostle Paul. So it is believed that Mark’s Gospel is the eyewitness testimony of Peter.

* Matthew was a tax collector and disciple of Jesus.

* John was a disciple of Jesus. Matthew and John were among the 12 disciples. They were Jesus’ closest followers and constant companions throughout His ministry. They personally observed most of the events they described in their Gospels. – Jesus’ birth was 7-4 BC, His public ministry started with the choosing of His disciples 27-30 AD and His death was 30-33 AD.

* The Gospel of Mark written 60-75 AD

* The Gospel of Matthew written 60-85 AD

* The Gospel of Luke written 60-85 AD

* The Gospel of John was 65-95 AD

Video: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig

Cited Sources: The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel 

Response: 

You know the funny thing is, as you stated above, that the same people that don’t trust biblical history, usually dont have an issue believing ancient history. You are correct. We have more historical accounts (manuscripts) of the resurrection than we do of Alexander the Great. Some of the manuscripts of the resurrection account were as early as 30 years old. Most of the manuscripts of Alexander the Great were more than 400 years old when they were discovered. Yet most people would approach the history of Alexander the Great with the same skepticism as they do the resurrection account. It really all boils down to conviction. The history of Alexander the Great does not require that a man look at himself as a sinner in need of God's redemption, but the resurrection account does. People that are running from God will always come up with a reason why they cant trust biblical history.

Response:

Interesting stuff, and the debate will go on until the second coming. I have to walk by faith, continue my journey and for the same reason that scientists don’t believe, I do believe. The way the world revolves and all of the creatures function, including human beings, it has to be by design. When scientists attempt to recreate what has occurred naturally or by God, the same thing in my opinion, when they attempt to recreate, there is always a flaw, even if the flaw is in, to the human eye perfection.

Response:

Amen. God gives the gift of faith to those who are open to receive.

Galatians 3:6-8

just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”

1 John 4:1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that 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 the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Objection: 

Okay. I’m with you. There’s consensus within the mainstream community or within the field of theological historians or any historians for that matter. But, of course, there’s still a leap there to say that means it must be true. It’s just a consensus. But, moreover, I’ll move onto my next challenge. By your own criteria, wouldn’t the Koran, or teachings of the Buddha, etc., have just as much consensus among their followers?

Response: 

They have their view of who “god” is. Those religions will give you no assurance, because there is no relationship with God. Ask anyone in those religious systems of them if they know they are going to heaven. They hope the good deeds in their life outweigh the bad, but they are not sure. I go with the God who raised Himself from the dead. In Christianity, you find convincing manuscript evidence, archaeological support and prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus. It reads like history, not mythology. It outweighs what the other “gods” offer. When God broke into time and space in human flesh He left behind evidence of this miraculous event. Even if we had video footage, there would be people who wouldn’t believe. A skeptic convinced against his will, remains a skeptic still.