The Internal Evidence Test

   I AM sorry! I wrote this blog, but never posted it. It should have come before the third test which was "The External Evidence Test".
   We continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter". Josh started off with, "The bibliographical test has determined only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent. That is the problem of internal criticism, which is the second test of historicity listed by C. Sanders."
   Josh mentioned that we must give an author the benefit of the doubt until the author disqualifies himself with inaccuracies and/or contradictions. If the author lived close to the events he is more able to tell the truth. The New Testament was written by eye witnesses or those who wrote about others who told them of their own experiences with Christ. He, then, quoted a number of passages in which the authors tell why and how they got their information and the historical data to write their books or letters.(Luke 1:1-3, II Pet 1:16, I John 1:3, John 19:35, Luke 3:1) In giving historical data we can find out if their facts are true. There have been times when the Bible was thought to be wrong, but archaeology proved it to be correct.
   The writings about Christ were circulated while those who knew the facts were alive and could have approved or denied what the writers said. The disciples even confronted their enemies about things that had happened. If they didn't have their facts right the enemies would have let it be known.
   Josh, again, lists 2 passages showing that the disciples, indeed, did refer to the facts before their enemies. He listed Acts 2:22 and 26:24-28.
   Josh wrote about some other authors who agreed that the disciples had mentioned the facts of Christ's life not only to friendly audiences, but also to those who were enemies. He closed the section on "The Internal Evidence Test" with a quote from Will Durant who was trained in historical investigation. He said, in essence, that the fact that the authors mentioned embarassing facts about Christ and themselves is proof that they didn't invent the story. He suggests that it would be a greater miracle than Christ's if those few men could have made up such a fantastic story in such a short time.
   If one is really open to the truth, the Bible has been proven to be true. No other book has been gone over so critically and been proven true in all aspects. May God bless you with the knowledge of the Truth as you read the New Testament.

Sincerely,
Rick

The External Evidence Test

   External evidence is the 3rd test to prove the reliability of the Bible - or any writing. When the Bible is compared to archaeology and reliable historical documents, it passes the test with flying colors! The external evidence must agree with the internal evidence found in the document being tested. With the Bible, it does.
   Josh quoted Gottschalk as saying that, "Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or of more witnesses."
   Two friends of the apostle John confirm the internal evidence of his writings. John, himself, is quoted by Papias, bishop of Hieropolis, as confirming Mark's Gospel as being an accurate compilation of the apostle Peter's teaching; "...for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."
   Josh wrote, "Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons" (and student of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John) "wrote: Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews (i.e. Jews) in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church there....Mark...handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John...himself, produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."
   Again, Josh quoted Joseph Free, an archaeologist, who wrote, "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which having been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." Remember that Sir William Ramsay was convinced that the Book of Acts was true and very accurate when he, in doubt, studied the facts of archaeology.
   Josh quoted 2 more historians who point out the great accuracy of Luke's books. Then he mentioned his own unbelief and, then, acceptance of the Bible as factual. Josh wrote,  "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Having done this, I believe we can say, 'The Bible is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus.'"
   Josh, then quoted Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology at Regent College, who stated: "There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest (person) cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational (i.e., antisupernatural) bias."
   In conclusion, the only way to continue as a nonbeliever in the accuracy of the Bible is to refuse to examine or believe the evidence. I believe that would prove that one is simply prejudiced against the Bible and refuses to believe the facts.

Sincerely,
Rick

The External Evidence Test

   We continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter". Josh started off with, "The bibliographical test has determined only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded. One has still to determine whether that written record is credible and to what extent. That is the problem of internal criticism, which is the second test of historicity listed by C. Sanders."
   He mentioned that we must give an author the benefit of the doubt until the author disqualifies himself with inaccuracies and/or contradictions. If the writer lived close to the events he is more able to tell the truth. The New Testament was written by eye-witnesses or those who wrote about those who told him of their experiences with Christ. He, then, quotes a number of passages in which the authors tell why and how they got the historical data to write their books or letters. (Luke1:1-3, II Pet.1:16, I John 1:3, John 19:35, Luke 3:1) Since they gave historical data we can find out if their facts are true. There have been times when the Bible was thought to be wrong, but archaeology proved it to be correct.
   The writings about Christ were circulated while those who knew the facts were alive and could have approved or denied what they wrote. The disciples even confronted their enemies about things that had happened. If they didn't have the facts right their enemies would have let it be known, but they didn't dispute what was said.
   Josh, again, lists 2 passages showing that  the disciples, indeed, did refer to the facts in front of their enemies. He listed Acts 2:22 and 26:24-28.
   Josh wrote about some other authors who agreed that the disciples had mentioned the facts of Christ's life not only to friendly audiences, but also to those who were enemies. He closed the section on "Internal Evidence Test" with a quote from Will Durant who was trained in historical investigation. He said, in essence, that the fact that the authors mentioned embarrassing facts about Christ and themselves is proof that they didn't invent the story. He suggests that it would be a greater miracle than Christ's if those few men could have made up such a fantastic story in such a short time.
   If one is really open to the truth, the Bible has been proven to be true. No other book has been gone over so critically and been proven true in all aspects. May God bless you with the knowledge of the Truth as you read the New Testament. See the Truth for yourself!

Sincerely,
Rick

The Bibliographical Test

   As we continue in chapter 4 of "More Than A Carpenter", we will look at the "bibliographical test". Josh defines this as, "...an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and extant copies?"(the copies we have today)
   The writings of secular authors aren't questioned nearly as harshly as the Bible is. The earliest MSS can be up to 1400 yrs after the original, but they are thought to be good copies. Added to that, there may be only a few copies, but their authenticity isn't questioned.
   There is a super abundance of copies of the New Testament. There are over 20,000 copies! They are from only 130-155 AD. No secular work has copies so close to the original that I know of.
   Josh quoted Sir Frederic Kenyon, "Who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
   Josh closed this "test" with, "The application of the bibliographical test to the New Testament assures us that it has more manuscript authority than any piece of literature from antiquity. Adding to that authority the more than 100 years of intensive New Testament textual criticism, one can conclude that an authentic New Testament text has been established."
   I believe the evidence that we have the same text that was originally written is overwhelming. We have a Bible that we absolutely CAN BELIEVE!

Very Sincerely,
Rick