DID THE NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES HAVE SELFISH MOTIVES?

APOSTLE  MOTIVES….FOR  DOING  WHAT  THEY  DID?

FROM  THE  BOOK  “COLD-CASE  CHRISTIANITY”  BY  WARNER  WALLACE

WERE THEY BIASED?

The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus

is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it....

How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal?

Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they

found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death.

But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61,

the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures— But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection.¹⁸⁰ —Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar, professor of religious studies, and author of Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bibles Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are

THREE MOTIVES

Everyone has a motive. We tend to think of criminals when we hear the word, but jurors must also consider motive when examining and evaluating eyewitnesses who have testified in a trial.

Jurors learn that they must think about whether or not a witness was “influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided.” There are two factors at work in a question like this: bias and motive. Were the disciples lying about the resurrection, as Bart Ehrman claims? Were their claims based on religious expectation or bias? If so, what was it that they were hoping to gain from this elaborate lie? If the apostles wanted Jesus to be God, an elaborate lie wouldn't actually accomplish this, at least for the apostles. Lies might fool those who weren't there, but they wouldn't fool those who knew better. What did the disciples hope to gain if their stories were false? Let's study the issue of motive and finish our journey with an examination of Christian eyewitness bias.

In all my years working homicides, I've come to discover that only three broad motives lie at the heart of any murder. As it turns out, these three motives are also the same driving forces behind other types of misbehavior; they are the reasons why we sometimes think what we shouldn't think, say what we shouldn't say, or do what we shouldn't do.

FINANCIAL GREED

This is often the driving force behind the crimes that I investigate. Some murders, for example, result from a botched robbery. Other murders take place simply because they give the suspect a financial advantage. As an example, I once worked a homicide committed by a husband who didn't want his wife to receive a portion of his retirement.

SEXUAL OR RELATIONAL DESIRE

I've also investigated a number of murders that were sexually (or relationally) motivated. Some sexual attackers murder their victims so they can't testify later. Some murders occur simply because a jealous boyfriend couldn't bear to see his girlfriend dating another man.

PURSUIT OF POWER

Finally, some people commit murders to achieve or maintain a position of power or authority. It might be a rivalry between two people who are trying to get the same promotion. Others have killed simply because the victim dishonored or "disrespected" them in front of a group of peers.

Sex, money, and power are the motives for all the crimes detectives investigate. In fact, these three motives are also behind lesser sins as well. Think about the last time you did something you shouldn't have. If you examine the motivation carefully, you'll probably see that it fits broadly into one of these three categories.

The presence of motive doesn't always mean that a suspect actually committed the crime. Someone might have the motive to do something criminal, yet be able to resist the temptation to act. On the flip side, however, defense attorneys often cite the lack of motive when they are making a case for their client's innocence. "Why would my client have done such a thing when it would not benefit him in any way?" That's a fair question and one that we need to ask as we examine the claims of the apostles.

APOSTOLIC MOTIVATION

Did the alleged eyewitnesses of Jesus's life and ministry have an ulterior motive when writing the Gospels? Do we have any good reason to believe that the apostles were driven to lie by one of the three motives we have described? No. There is nothing in history (neither Christian history nor secular history) to suggest that the disciples had anything to gain from their testimony related to Jesus.

THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY FINANCIAL GAIN

There are many ancient accounts describing the lives of the apostles following the period of time recorded in the book of Acts. Local believers in a variety of ancient communities wrote about the activities of the individual disciples as they preached the gospel across the region. None of these texts describe any of the disciples as men who possessed material wealth. The disciples repeatedly appear as men who were chased from location to location, continually abandoning whatever property they owned and vacating whatever homes they were borrowing. The disciples were accustomed to living in this manner; they decided to leave their homes and families when they first began to follow Jesus. Peter acknowledged as much when he told Jesus, "Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You" (Luke 18:28). The disciples rejected all material wealth, believing that the truth of the gospel provided eternal life, something that was vastly more valuable. Paul described their impoverished financial condition many times, reminding his listeners that the apostles were "both hungry and thirsty, and [were] poorly clothed, and [were] roughly treated, and [were] homeless" (1 Cor. 4:11). The apostles lived "as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things" (2 Cor. 6:9-10). If the disciples and apostles were lying for financial gain, their lies didn t seem to be working. Those who watched Paul closely knew that he was dedicated to spiritual life rather than material gain; he "coveted no ones silver or gold or clothes" (Acts 20:33).

……

[Judges advise juries that they may consider motive as they assess the guilt of defendants:

"The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit any of the crimes charged. In reaching your verdict you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive."

"Having a motive may be a factor tending to show that the defendant is guilty. Not having a motive may be a factor tending to show the defendant is not guilty" (Section 370, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006)]

……

The other apostles were in a very similar financial situation. When Peter and John were in Jerusalem in the first half of the first century, they were approached by a poor disabled man who asked them for money. Peter told the man, "I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!" (Acts 3:6).

The disciples were consistently described as having chosen a life of material poverty in pursuit of spiritual truth. When James described the rich (as in James 5:1-5), he always did so in second person. He didn't include himself in their numbers. The apostles never described themselves as wealthy; instead, they warned those who were rich that their wealth could indeed threaten their perspective on eternal matters. Like the other apostolic writers, James described his fellow believers as joyfully impoverished: "Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?" (James 2:5).

The apostles gained nothing financially from their testimony of Jesus’s life and ministry.

The New Testament letters of Paul were written very early in history to people who knew Paul personally. If he was lying about his financial situation, his readers would have known it. All the nonbiblical accounts related to the lives of the apostles, whether legitimate or legendary, affirm the poverty of the disciples as they traveled the world to proclaim their testimony. The most reasonable inference from the early record of the New Testament document and the agreement of the nonbiblical record is that the writers of the New Testament were as contentedly as they proclaimed. It is reasonable to conclude that financial greed was not the motive that drove these men to make the claims they made in the Gospels. In fact, they remained impoverished

THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY SEX OR RELATIONSHIPS

It's equally unreasonable to suggest that the apostles were motivated by lust or relationships. While the New Testament documents say little about the "love lives" of the apostolic eyewitnesses, we do know that Peter was married and had a mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14). Paul confirmed this and suggested that Peter wasn't the only one who was married when, in his letter to the Corinthians, he asked, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas [Peter]?" (1 Cor. 9:5). The early church fathers also suggested that all of the apostles were married, with the possible exception of the youngest apostle, John. Clement of Alexandria wrote that Peter and Philip had children181 and that Paul, although married, did not take his wife with him when testifying as an apostle.

[CLEMENT WAS FROM 150-215 — AND  WAS  WELL  AFTER  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL;  THERE  ARE  A  NUMBER  OF  IDEAS  AND  TEACHINGS  THAT  THE  SO-CALLED  “CHURCH  FATHERS”  WERE  INTO;  THEIR  THEOLOGY  MANY  TIMES  WAS  QUESTIONABLE;  IT  WAS  THE  TIME  OF  THE  RISE  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. I  FIND  IT  HARD  TO  BELIEVE  PAUL  WOULD  NOT  TAKE  HIS  WIFE  WITH  HIM  AS  LIKE  PETER  ETC.  THE  NT  IS  SILENT  ON  PAUL  BEING  MARRIED,  AND  IF  HE  WAS  I  CAN  NOT  BELIEVE  HE  WOULD  NOT  MENTION  IT  IN  SOME  WAY,  IN  ALL  HIS  EPISTLES  -  Keith Hunt]

The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry.... [The apostles], in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives.182

[THIS  IDEA  AND  COMMENT  IS  A  BIT  OF  OUTRIGHT  SILLY THEOLOGY.  PAUL  WROTE  PETER  LED  HIS  WIFE  ABOUT,  AS  DID  OTHER  APOSTLES.  TRYING  TO  SAY  IT  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  A  DISTRACTION  TO  HAVE  YOUR  WIFE  WITH  YOU,  IS  AGAIN  SILLY  IDEAS  OF  A  SILLY  THEOLOGY.  AND  TO  ADD  MORE  SILLINESS  TO  SILLINESS,  IS  THAT  THE  APOSTLES  TOOK  THEIR  WIVES  WITH  THEM  AS  “SISTERS”  -  THIS  IS  LAUGHABLE  IF  NOT  SUCH  A  SERIOUS  MATTER.  PAUL  TAUGHT  REGULAR  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  FOR  THE  MARRIED,  AND  ONLY  NOT  FOR  FASTING  AND  PRAYER,  THEN  COME  TOGETHER  AGAIN  -  1 COR. 7: 1-5.  IN  MARRIAGE (INCLUDING  MINISTERS)  PROPER  REGULAR  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  IS  COMMANDED (THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  UNDER  DEVINE  INSPIRATION  SAYS  SO).  NEVER  SHOULD  A  MINISTER (OR  ANYONE)  WITH  A  WIFE,  EVER  LIVE  AS  IF  SHE  WAS  YOUR  SISTER.  SUCH  THEOLOGY  TEACHING  IS  EXACTLY  OPPOSITE  TO  THE  DIVINE  TRUTH  AND  COMMANDMENT  GOD  GAVE  THROUGH  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL.  AND  I  WILL  ADD  THERE  ARE  TOO  MANY  JOBS  IN  THIS  MODERN WORLD  WHERE  HUSBAND  AND  WIFE  ARE  APART  FROM  EACH  OTHER  FOR  WAY  TOO  LONG  A  TIME,  AND  SO  AS  PAUL  SAID,  “…..SO  SATAN  DOES  NOT  TEMPT  YOU  BECAUSE  OF  YOUR  LACK  OF  SELF  CONTROL.” (1 COR. 7:5)  -  Keith Hunt]

Clement suggested here that the apostles were not only married, but also denied themselves sexual contact with their wives after the ascension in order to better minister to those they sought to reach with their testimony. Ignatius also referred to the apostles as married.

[YA  WELL  CLEMENT  WAS  A  NUT  CASE  ON  THIS  MATTER….HE  WAS  ONE  OF  THE  ROOT  PEOPLE  WHO  FOUNDED  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  WITH  ITS  FALSE  TEACHING  ON  MANY  SIDES  OF  SEXUALITY  -  CLEMENT  WAS  JUST  WRONG,  VERY  WRONG  -  Keith Hunt]

For I pray that, being found worthy of God, I may be found at their feet in the kingdom, as at the feet of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; as of Joseph, and Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets; as of Peter, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles, that were married men. For they entered into these marriages not for the sake of appetite, but out of regard for the propagation of mankind.183

[YA  FOUNDERS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  WE  HAVE  NO  PROOF  PAUL  WAS  MARRIED,  AND  THE  SILLY  WORDS  “FOR  THEY  ENTERED  INTO  THESE  MARRIAGES  NOT  FOR  THE  SAKE  OF  APPETITE,  BUT  OUT  OF  REGARD  FOR  THE  PROPAGATION  OF  MANKIND”  IS,  OR  WAS,  A  VERY  COMMON  THINKING  BY  MANY  IN  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  BOTH  IN  THE  LAY  PEOPLE  AND  PRIESTHOOD.  WORDS  FAIL  ME  TO  DESCRIBE  MY  THOUGHTS  AS  TO  THE  STUPIDITY  OF  SUCH  A  FALSE  DOCTRINE…..GETTING  MARRIED  OR  SEXUALITY  IN  MARRIAGE  JUST  FOR,  AND  ONLY  FOR  “PROPAGATION  OF  MANKIND”….. A  SILLY  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  IDEA,  BUT  PUT  TO  ONE  SIDE  TODAY,  AS  EVEN  MOST  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  COUPLES  WOULD  LAUGH  AT  IT,  IF  NOT  PUBLICALLY  CERTAINLY  IN  PRIVATE  -  Keith Hunt]    

Like Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius also reported that the apostles held a view of sexuality that placed their testimony ahead of their personal desire. This was affirmed by another early Christian author named Tertullian, who wrote in the early third century:

[The] Apostles, withal, had a "licence" to marry, and lead wives about (with them). They had a "licence," too, to "live by the Gospel."184

[MORE  WORDS  FROM  FOUNDERS  OF  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  WITH  THEIR  FALSE  IDEAS  OF  MARRIAGE  AND  SEX.  “PERSONAL  DESIRE”  -  WHAT  ABOUT  THEIR  WIVES?  DID  THEY  NOT  HAVE  DESIRES?  IT  IS  MADE  OUT  THAT  ONLY  MEN  HAD  PERSONAL  DESIRES,  AND  THEY  WERE  SO  RIGHTEOUS  AND  SELF-CONTROLLED  THEY  PUT  AWAY  THEIR  PERSONAL  DESIRES  OF  SEXUALITY;  THE  WIVES  IT  SEEMS  WERE  SEXLESS  IN  HORMONES…..WHAT  A  BIG  FAT  LIE  OR  MISCONCEPTION  THAT  IS….ASK  ANY  MARRIED  WOMAN,  WITH  NORMAL  FEMALE  HORMONES.  YES  THE  APOSTLES  HAD  A  RIGHT  TO  HAVE  A  WIFE,  AND  WITH  THEM,  AND  TO  LIVE  OFF  THE  GOSPEL  ALSO;  BUT  SOME  LIKE  PAUL  DID  NOT  CLAIM  IT,  BUT  CHOSE  TO  WORK  IN  A  TRADE  AT  TIMES.  NOW  SPENDING  TIME  TO  WORK  AT  YOUR  TRADE  FOR  HOURS  A  DAY,  IS  WAY  MORE  TIME  SPENT  THAN  HAVING  AN  HOUR  OR  TWO  IN  SEXUAL  RELATIONS  WITH  YOUR  WIFE.  OH,  THE  BRAINLESS,  NO  COMMON  SENSE  THINKING  BY  SOME….. SUCH  THEOLOGY  THINKING  IS  FROM  PLANET  PLUTO  -  Keith Hunt]

The apostles had a right to bring their wives with them on their journeys, and some may have done so. In any case, it is clear from both the biblical record and the nonbiblical history that the apostles were careful to live their sexual lives in a manner that was beyond reproach. In fact, while other men within the culture often had more than one wife, the apostles allowed men to rise to leadership only if they limited themselves to one wife (1 Tim. 3:2).

[YES  AND  AS  WE  HAVE  SEEN,  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  WAS  INSPIRED  TO  SAY  MARRIED  COUPLES  SHOULD  LIVE  A  NORMAL  SEXUAL  LIFE  WITH  EACH  OTHER,  AND  ONLY  BY  CONSENT,  LIKE  FASTING  AND  PRAYING  SHOULD  THAT  NORMALITY  BE  PUT  TO  ONE  SIDE.  AND  THERE  IS  NOT  ONE  LAW  FOR  THE  LAY  PEOPLE  AND  ANOTHER  LAW  FOR  THE  MINISTERS  -  Keith Hunt]

The twelve apostles were not twelve single men in search of a good time. They weren't using their position or testimony to woo the local eligible women. If the apostles were motivated by sexual desire, there is certainly no record of it in the ancient writings of the time and no hint of it in their own texts. They were married men (most likely) who held chastity and sexual purity in high regard. The most reasonable inference, given what we know about the lives of the apostles, is that sexual or relational desire was not the motive that drove these men to make the claims they made in the Gospels.

[YES  THE  MOTIVE  OF  GAINING  MANY  WIVES  OR  HAVING  SEX  WITH  NEW  CHRISTIAN  WOMEN,  WAS  AS  FAR  AWAY  FROM  THE  APOSTLE’S  MIND  AS  MARS  IS  FROM  EARTH  -  Keith Hunt]

THE APOSTLES WERE NOT DRIVEN BY THE PURSUIT OF POWER

Some skeptics have argued that the apostles were motivated by a desire to be powerful within their individual religious communities. They will often point to the power that Christian leaders eventually had in Rome when Christianity became the state-sponsored religion in the fourth century. There is no doubt that the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church eventually became incredibly powerful both religiously and politically. But when we examine the lives of the first-century apostles, they bear little resemblance to the lives of the Roman Catholic Popes.

Power has its perks, not the least of which is the ability to protect oneself. This kind of power was never available to the apostles. The early Christian movement immediately faced hostility from those who actually did possess power in the first century. Rumors quickly spread that the Christians practiced rituals that offended Roman sensibilities and were unwilling to worship Emperor Nero as divine. Tacitus recorded Nero's response:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.185

At this early point in Christian history, leadership within the Christian community was a liability rather than an asset. Prominent believers and leaders who openly admitted their allegiance to Jesus ("pleaded guilty") and refused to recant this allegiance were the first to die. It was during this time in history when Peter and Paul were executed in Rome, but they weren't the only apostles whose prominence as Christian leaders cost them their lives. The nonbiblical histories and writings related to the lives and ministries of the twelve disciples consistently proclaimed that the apostles were persecuted and eventually martyred for their testimony. The apostolic eyewitnesses refused to change their testimony about what they saw, even though they faced unimaginable torture and execution. Only John appears to have escaped martyrdom, but he, too, was exiled and persecuted for his position as an apostle.

Persecution was the uniform experience of the apostles, long before they were finally executed for their faith. Paul's experience, as he told it in his letter to the Corinthians, was sadly normative for the apostles:

Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure upon me of concern for all the churches. (2 Cor. 11:24—28)

[Bias and Prejudice

Bias:

"An inclination of temperament or outlook; especially a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment."

Prejudice:

"(1) Preconceived judgment or opinion (2): An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge."

(Merriam-Webster's   Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition)]

As the apostles rose to positions of leadership, they made themselves the target of persecution and abuse. The more prominent they became, the more they risked death at the hands of their adversaries. The most reasonable inference, given what we know about their deaths, is that the pursuit of power and position was not the motive that drove these men to make the claims they made in the Gospels.

If a defense attorney were representing any of the apostles, defending them against the accusation that they lied about their testimony, the attorney could fairly ask the question "Why would my client have done such a thing when it would not benefit him in any way?" Certainly there was no benefit to any of the apostles in the three areas we would expect to motivate such a lie.

FREE FROM ULTERIOR MOTIVE

Motive is a key factor that jurors must assess when evaluating the reliability of witnesses. That's why judges advise jurors to ask questions like "Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?" (See chapter 4.) We need to know if something other than the simple desire to report the truth motivated the witnesses to say what they said. As we examine the motives of the gospel writers, it's clear that the forces that typically compel people to lie didn't drive the authors. The apostles were free from ulterior motive.

But what about bias? Even if they didn't possess one of these three self-serving motives, how do we know that the gospel writers weren't simply biased? Judges encourage jurors to find out if the witness was "influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided." If a witness held a preconception or partiality as he or she watched the event, that bias may have influenced how the witness interpreted what he or she saw. Bias can cause people to see something incorrectly. Was this the case with the apostles?

SO, IS THIS WHY SOME CONTINUE TO DENY IT?

Some skeptics base their distrust of the Gospels (and of the nonbiblical accounts of the apostles' lives following Jesus's ascension) on the possible presence of bias. Even though there is no evidence to suggest that the apostles were motivated by greed, lust, or power, critics are still suspicious of the gospel accounts.

Let's look at the reasons behind their suspicions and include them in our final evaluation utilizing abductive reasoning.

THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS

Skeptics have argued that the Gospels cannot be trusted because they were not authored by objective non-Christians. The New Testament records, according to this view, were written by biased Christians who were trying to convince us of their religious perspective. Critics claim that these Christians observed the events through a charged religious lens and then reported the events from this viewpoint. As a result, the gospel narratives are biased and unreliable.

BUT...

This is not an accurate description of what occurred in the first century as the gospel eyewitnesses observed the life and ministry of Jesus. Let me give you an example from one of my cases to illustrate the point. Many years ago, when I was working robberies, I had a case in which a local bank was robbed. The suspect (Mark Hill) entered the bank in the afternoon and waited in line to approach the teller. He stood in the lobby for two or three minutes, waiting to walk up to the counter, where he eventually gave the teller a "demand note" and flashed a handgun in his waistband. While he was waiting for the opportunity, a bank employee (Kathy Smalley) saw him standing in line. Kathy was working as an assistant manager and had a desk located in the lobby, adjacent to the teller line. She recognized Mark as he waited for his turn. Kathy had attended high school with Mark and recognized him because he was a talented (and popular) athlete. Even though many years had passed, Kathy still recognized him with certainty. Mark, on the other hand, was focused as he waited to rob the bank. He never even looked up to see Kathy watching him. He eventually approached the teller (Debra Camacho) and completed his robbery. Debra gave Mark the money he demanded and then pushed the silent alarm button as he turned to walk away. She motioned quickly to Kathy, who was sitting within her view.

Kathy recognized the fact that Debra had just been robbed. She couldn't believe it. She never considered Mark to be the kind of person who would commit a robbery. In fact, she thought Mark got an athletic scholarship after high school and assumed he became a successful athlete and college graduate. When she first saw Mark enter the lobby, she never thought he was about to commit a robbery. After the fact, however, she was certain that Mark was the robber. She was now a true believer in Mark's guilt. After all, she saw it with her own eyes. You might say that Kathy was now a "Mark Hillian" believer related to the robbery. So let me ask you a question. Should I trust her testimony? Isn't she too biased to be a reliable witness? Kathy is not neutral about what she saw in the bank. She has a perspective and an opinion about the identity of the robber. She's a Mark Hillian believer; she is certain that of all the possible truths related to who committed the robbery, only one is accurate. If she's this biased, how can I trust what she has to say?

Can you see how ridiculous this concern would be? Kathy didn't start off with a bias against Mark or a presupposition that tainted her observations. In fact, she was shocked to find that Mark was capable of committing such a crime. She was not a "Mark Hillian" believer until after the fact.

In a similar way, the authors of the Gospels were not "Christian" believers until after they observed the life and ministry of Jesus. Much has been written about the fact that Jews in first-century Palestine were looking for a Messiah who would save them from Roman oppression. They were expecting a military liberator, not a spiritual savior. Even Bart Erhman admits that the disciples found themselves asking the question "How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal?" They didn't expect Jesus (as the military messiah) to die, and they certainly didn't expect Him to come back to life.

The Gospels are filled with examples of the disciples misunderstanding the predictions and proclamations of Jesus. There are many examples of doubt and hesitancy on the part of those who witnessed Jesus's life. The skeptical disciples continually asked Jesus for clarification, and Thomas, after spending three years with Jesus, still wouldn't believe His prediction of the resurrection until he saw Jesus with his own eyes and touched Jesus with his own hands.

The apostles became convinced of Jesus’s deity after they observed His life and resurrection. They didn't start off as Christians any more than Kathy started off as a "Mark Hillian." The disciples ended up as Christians (certain that Jesus was God) as a result of their observations, just as Kathy ended up as a "Mark Hillian" (certain that he was the robber) as a result of her observations. The disciples were not prejudicially biased; they were evidentially certain.

THE DEATH NARRATIVES OF THE APOSTLES WERE WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS

Skeptics have also argued that little or no weight can be given to the fact that the apostles were allegedly martyred for their testimony because the "histories" that describe their martyrdom are largely Christian legends written by believers. How do we even know that these martyrdoms really occurred if the only records we have are biased stories and legends filled with miraculous tales?

BUT...

As described in chapter 1, we can’t allow the description of miraculous occurrences to automatically disqualify the ancient accounts. If we are going to claim that the ancient stories are biased (because they were written by Christians), we cannot reject them with a bias of our own (against supernaturalism). While it is true that some accounts related to the martyrdom of the apostles are more reliable than others, we have no reason to reject all of them as historically inaccurate. The deaths of Peter, Paul, James, and John are very well attested, and the remaining martyrdom accounts of the apostles (with the possible exception of Matthias and Philip) are sufficiently documented to provide us with confidence that we know the truth about their deaths.

Most importantly, there aren't any ancient non-Christian accounts that contradict the claims of the Christian authors who wrote about the deaths of the eyewitness disciples. It's not as though we have competing accounts related to the testimony of these men. We don't have ancient Christians on one side, claiming that the apostles died because they proclaimed the truth about Jesus and refused to recant their testimony, and ancient non-Christians on the other side, claiming that the apostles eventually confessed that it was all a lie. There are no ancient authors claiming anything other than what the Christians described; there are no contradictory accounts that portray the apostles as liars who confessed their lies when pressured. The unanimous testimony of antiquity is that the early Christian eyewitnesses suffered for their testimony but stayed the course. They didn't flinch, and they never changed their story.

THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION

Abductive reasoning can help us decide between two possible conclusions related to the bias or motive that the apostolic eyewitnesses may have had when writing their Gospels or testifying to their observations. Let's list the evidence one final time, alongside the two possible explanations that can account for what we have seen so far:

The Apostles Were Not Driven by Financial Grain 

The Apostles Were Not Driven by Sex or Relationship. 

The Apostles Were Not Driven by the Pursuit of Power

The Gospels Were Written by  Christians

The Death Narratives of the Apostles were written by Christians 

The apostles lacked evil intent. They simply couldn't benefit from lying about what they saw. In fact, they would have been far better off if they had kept their mouth shut. What could they possibly have gained from this elaborate lie? It's clear that the gospel writers appeared to be more concerned about eternal life than material gain. Could a lie about Jesus make His spiritual claims true? Does it make sense that the disciples would forsake everything for spiritual claims they knew were untrue? 

The evidence from history once again supports the first explanation better than the second. It offers reasonable responses to the challenges offered by skeptics.

The second explanation, on the other hand, is simply unable to account adequately for the lack of motive on the part of the apostles. The first explanation is feasible, straightforward, and logical. It exhausts all the evidence we have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative explanation. It is, once again, the most reasonable explanation.

………………..

HOW Bible Scriptures were PASSED ON

BIBLE  SCRIPTURES  PASSED  ON  ACCURATELY  BY  WHOM?

FROM  THE  BOOK  “COLD-CASE CHRISTIANITY”  BY  WARNER  WALLACE

WERE THEY ACCURATE?

The characters and events depicted in the ... bible are fictitious. Any

similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental/⁶

—Comedians and magicians "Penn and Teller"

How do we know that our holy books are free from error?

Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes

of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.⁷⁷

—Sam Harris, neuroscientist, speaker, and author of The End

of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

TIME, DOCUMENTATION, AND LIES

People who claim that the biblical narratives are mere fiction and filled with error presume that the authors of the Bible wrote the Gospels long after the reported events allegedly occurred and far from the locations they described. False, fictional elements can be inserted into an account if they are inserted well after any living eyewitnesses are alive to identify them as lies. In addition, if the true historical record has not been preserved well or guarded to prevent corruption, errors can slip in without much notice. If this occurred with the Gospels, they are untrustworthy. Even if they are corroborated at several points by archaeology or internal evidences, they may still be inaccurate about any number of episodes they describe.

Cold-case investigators understand the relationship between time and reliability. We have to evaluate the prior statements of witnesses and suspects and do our best to figure out if these statements are true or fictional. Sometimes the passage of time provides an advantage to cold-case investigators that was not available to the detectives who originally worked the case. Time often exposes the inaccuracy of eyewitnesses and the lies of suspects. I've taken advantage of this over the years.

I once had a case where the suspect (Jassen) provided an alibi at the time he was originally investigated in 1988. Jassen said that he was driving to a friend's house at the time of the murder, although he never made it there because he had a flat tire. When he said this to the original detectives, they wrote it in their notes. They failed, however, to document Jassen's statement in their final report. They never found enough evidence to arrest Jassen, and as a result, they didn't write an arrest report; their closing reports were far less complete than they would have been if anyone had actually been arrested for this crime.

Years later, I reopened the case and examined the original reports and notes of the first detectives. They had been carefully preserved in our department's records division, where they were originally copied and stored on microfiche. I saw Jassen's original statement in the first detective's notes and asked this investigator to meet with me. He told me about his interview with Jassen, and without prompting from his notes, he recalled the details of what Jassen said with great accuracy. When I showed him the copy of his notes, he recognized them without hesitation.

I next arranged an impromptu interview with Jassen. While the original detective was careful to take notes about the interview he conducted in 1988, Jassen made no such record. With the passage of time, Jassen forgot what he first told the detective. The story he now gave to me was completely different from the story he first gave to detectives. Gone was his claim that he was driving to a friend's house. Gone was his claim that he suffered a flat tire. Jassen now said that he was changing the oil in his garage at the time of the murder. When I presented him with the original story, he not only failed to recognize it as his own, but also adamantly denied ever making such a statement. Jassen couldn t remember (or repeat) his original lie. The more I talked to him, the more he exposed the fact that the original story was a piece of fiction. Once he knew he had been caught in a lie, his alibi and confidence began to crumble.

Jassen was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. The jury was convinced that the original notes from the detective were authentic and well preserved. They were convinced that the notes contained an accurate description of Jassens first statement. They were also convinced that Jassens latest statement was untrue.

WHAT DID THEY SAY, AND HOW WELL WAS IT PRESERVED?

How do we know that the Biblical documents we have today are accurate and reliable? How do we know that they haven't been corrupted over time and contain little more than fiction? Like our cold-case investigations, we need certainty in two important areas of investigation. First, we need to make sure we know what the Gospels said in the first place. Second, we need to know if there is good reason to believe that these documents were preserved well over time. Jassens statement in 1988 was well documented and preserved. We were later able to make a case for the accuracy of his statement in front of the jury. Can a case be made for the accuracy of the Gospels? In order to find out if this is possible, we're going to investigate what the gospel writers first said and then study the way these statements were preserved over time.

One way to be certain about the content and nature of the early eyewitness statements is to examine the evidence related to the transmission of the New Testament. In chapter 8 we talked about the importance of identifying the original eyewitnesses and their immediate disciples in order to establish a New Testament chain of custody. If we can examine what these first eyewitnesses said to their students, we can reasonably trace the content of the Gospels from their alleged date of creation to the earliest existing copies. The oldest complete, surviving copy of the New Testament we have (Codex Sinaiticus) was discovered in the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai. Constantine Tischendorf observed it and published the discovery in the nineteenth century; scholars believe that it was produced sometime close to AD 350.78 The text of Codex Sinaiticus provides us with a picture of what the New Testament said in the fourth century, and scholars have used it to inform and confirm the content of Bible translations for many years now. Our examination of the New Testament chain of custody will attempt to link the claims of the original authors to this fourth-century picture of Jesus's life and ministry.

[TISCHENDORF FOUND IT IN A WASTE BASKET TO BE THROWN OUT AND DESTROYED; THAT TELLS YOU WHAT THE PRIESTS AT THAT ROMAN CATHOLIC MONASTERY THOUGHT OF THIS MSS…..SIMPLE WORDS….GARBAGE;  IT  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  BETTER  IF  IT  HAD  BEEN  DESTROYED  BEFORE  TISCHENDORF FOUND  IT.  MOST  OF  YOUR  MODERN  NEW  TESTAMENTS  ARE  BASED  ON  THIS  MSS  JUST  MENTIONED,  AND  THE  VATICAN’S  FOUND  ON  A  BACK  SHELF  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  LIBRARY  IN  ROME;  IT  SHOULD  HAVE  STAYED  THERE.  DID  WE  NOT  HAVE  THE  CORRECT  NEW  TESTAMENT  UNTIL  THE  19TH  CENTURY?  A  MOST  SILLY  IDEA  -  SEE  THE  MANY  STUDIES  UNDER  “HOW  WE  GOT  THE  BIBLE”  ON  MY  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]

When I first began to examine the "chain," I searched the historical record to identify the first students of the apostles. After all, the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus and experienced life with Him; I wanted to know what, exactly, they said to their students. While the apostles had a number of pupils, not every one of these second-generation Christians became a leader in his own right or was identified by history. Not every apostolic student had occasion to lead a group or author a letter revealing what the original disciples taught him. While many of the apostles' students may have written about the content of their teachers' testimony, only a few of these documents have survived. That shouldn't surprise us given the antiquity of the events we are examining. In spite of all this, I was able to identify several chains of custody that give us an idea of what the apostles observed and taught. In fact, I bet we could comfortably reconstruct an accurate image of Jesus from just the letters of the students of the apostles, even if all of Scripture was lost to us. Let's take a look at the evidence from the New Testament "chains of custody":

JOHN'S STUDENTS CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS

The apostle John (ca. AD 6-100) was the youngest of Jesus's disciples. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of James. Unlike all the other apostles (who died as martyrs), it appears that John lived to approximately ninety-four years of age and died a natural death. John taught two important students and passed his gospel into their trusted hands.

JOHN TAUGHT IGNATIUS

Ignatius (ca. AD 35—117) also called himself "Theophorus" (which means "God Bearer"). Not much is known about his early life, although early church records describe Ignatius as one of the children Jesus blessed in the gospel accounts. We do know, however, that Ignatius was a student of John and eventually became bishop at Antioch (Turkey), following the apostle Peter. He wrote several important letters to the early church, and seven authentic letters from Ignatius survive to this day (six to local church groups and one to Polycarp).79 Some of these letters were corrupted in later centuries and amended with additional passages. We do, however, possess copies of the shorter, genuine versions of each epistle, and these brief writings reveal the influence of John (and other apostles) on Ignatius. It's important to remember that it was not Ignatius's desire to retell the gospel narratives; his writings presume that these Gospels were already available to his readers. It was Ignatius's goal to encourage and admonish local church groups. Along the way, he did, however, refer to the New Testament documents and the nature of Jesus, even though this was not his primary goal. It's clear from Ignatius's letters that he knew many of the apostles, as he mentioned them frequently and spoke of them as though many of his older readers also knew them. Scholars have pored over the letters (written in AD 105-115) and have observed that Ignatius quoted (or alluded to) seven to sixteen New Testament books (including the gospels of Matthew, John, and Luke, and several, if not all, of Paul’s letters). While this establishes the fact that the New Testament concepts and documents existed very early in history, Ignatius’s letters also provide us with a picture of Jesus and a glimpse of how the apostle John (as an eyewitness) described Him. As I read through Ignatius’s letters, I found the following portrayal of Jesus:

The prophets predicted and waited for Jesus.80

Jesus was in the line of King David.81

He was (and is) the "Son of God."82

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.83

A star announced His birth.84

He came forth from God the Father.85

He was born of the virgin Mary.86

He was baptized by John the Baptist.87

He was the "perfect" man.88

He manifested the will and knowledge of God the Father.89

He taught and had a "ministry" on earth.90

He was the source of wisdom and taught many commandments.91

He spoke the words of God.92

Ointment was poured on Jesus’s head.93

He was unjustly treated and condemned by men.94

He suffered and was crucified.95

He died on the cross.96

Jesus sacrificed Himself for us as an offering to God the Father.97

This all took place under the government of Pontius Pilate.98

Herod the Tetrarch was king.99

Jesus was resurrected.100

He had a physical resurrection body.101

He appeared to Peter and the others after the resurrection.102

He encouraged the disciples to touch Him after the resurrection.103

He ate with the disciples after the resurrection.104

The disciples were convinced by the resurrection appearances.105

The disciples were fearless after seeing the risen Christ.106

Jesus returned to God the Father.107

Jesus now lives in us.108

We live forever as a result of our faith in Christ.109

He has the power to transform us.110

Jesus is the manifestation of God the Father.111

He is united to God the Father.112

He is our only Master113 and the Son of God.114

He is the "Door,"115 the "Bread of Life,"116 and the "Eternal Word."117

He is our High Priest.118

Jesus is "Lord."119

Jesus is "God."120

He is "our Savior"121 and the way to "true life."122

His sacrifice glorifies us.123

Faith in Christ's work on the cross saves us.124

This salvation and forgiveness are gifts of grace from God.125

Jesus loves the church.126

We (as the church) celebrate the Lords Supper in Jesus’ honor.127

The letters of Ignatius demonstrate that the New Testament’s claims and writings existed early in history; Ignatius appears to be very familiar with many passages from the Gospels and the letters of Paul. In addition, Ignatius echoed Johns description of Jesus.

JOHN TAUGHT POLYCARP

Polycarp (AD 69-155) was a friend of Ignatius and a fellow student of John. Irenaeus (we’ll about his conversations with John), and Polycarp was known to have been converted to Christianity by the eyewitness apostles themselves. Polycarp eventually became the bishop of Smyrna128 (now Izmir in Turkey) and wrote a letter to the church in Philippi, in response to its letter to him. The content of Polycarp’s letter (an ancient document written from AD 100 to 150 and well attested in history) refers to Ignatius personally and is completely consistent with the content of Ignatius’s letters. Polycarp also appears to be familiar with the other living apostles and eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. He wrote about Paul, recognizing Paul’s relationship with the church at Philippi and confirming the nature of Paul's life as an apostle. Polycarp’s letter is focused on encouraging the Philippians and reminding them of their duty to live in response to the New Testament teaching with which they were clearly familiar. In fact, Polycarp mentioned that the Philippians were well trained by the “sacred Scriptures” and quoted Paul's letter to the Ephesians as an example of these Scriptures. Polycarp quoted or referenced fourteen to sixteen New Testament books (including Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, and 1 John, with some scholars observing additional references to 2 Timothy and 2 Corinthians). Along the way, Polycarp also presented the image of Jesus he gleaned from his teacher, the aposde John, describing Jesus in the following ways:

Jesus was sinless.129

He taught commandments.130

He taught the Sermon on the Mount.131

He suffered and died on a cross.132

He died for our sins.133

His death on the cross saves us.134

Our faith in Jesus's work on the cross saves us.135

We are saved by grace.136

Jesus was raised from the dead.137

His resurrection ensures that we will also be raised.138

Jesus ascended to heaven and is seated at God's right hand.139

All things are subject to Jesus.140

He will judge the living and the dead.141

Jesus is our "Savior."142

Jesus is "Lord."143

Like that of Ignatius, Polycarp’s writing affirms the early appearance of the New Testament canon and echoes the teachings of John related to the nature and ministry of Jesus. Ignatius and Polycarp are an important link in the New Testament chain of custody, connecting Johns eyewitness testimony to the next generation of Christian "evidence custodians." We have a picture from the "crime scene" taken by the apostle John (recorded in his own gospel); this image was carefully handed to Ignatius and Polycarp, who, in turn, treasured it as sacred evidence and transferred it carefully to those who followed them.

IGNATIUS AND POLYCARP TAUGHT IRENAEUS

Irenaeus (AD 120-202) was born in Smyrna, the city where Polycarp served as bishop. He was raised in a Christian family and was a "hearer" (someone who listened to the teaching) of Polycarp; he later recalled that Polycarp talked about his conversations with the apostle John. He eventually became the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (now Lyons, France).144 Irenaeus matured into a theologian and guardian of Christianity and wrote an important work called Against Heresies. This refined defense of Christianity provided Irenaeus with the opportunity to address the issue of scriptural authority, and he specifically identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation). Irenaeus provided us with another link in the chain of custody, affirming the established eyewitness accounts and faithfully preserving them for the next generation as he connected the students of the apostles to the generations that followed him.

[POLYCARP  TAUGHT  POLYCRATES  OF  THE  LATTER  PART  OF  THE  SECOND  CENTURY  AD.  BOTH  OF  THEM  WENT  FROM  ASIA  MINOR  TO  ROME  TO  DEBATE  WITH  THE  BISHOP  OF  ROME,  CONCERNING  THE  DAY  AND  TIME  TO  CELEBRATE  THE  DEATH  OF  JESUS….AS  THEY  SAID  THEY  WERE  TAUGHT  IT  FROM  THE  APOSTLE  JOHN  -  THE  14TH  OF  THE  JEWISH  FIRST  MONTH.  THIS  CONTROVERSY  LAST  INTO  THE  5TH  CENTURY,  AND  IS  KNOWN  AS  THE  QUARTODECIMIN  CONTROVERSY  -  Keith Hunt]

IRENAEUS TAUGHT HIPPOLYTUS

One of these "next-generation" Christians was a courageous man named Hippolytus (AD 170— 236). Hippolytus was born in Rome and was a student and disciple of Irenaeus.145 As he grew into a position of leadership, he opposed Roman bishops who modified their beliefs to accommodate the large number of "pagans" who were coming to faith in the city. In taking a stand for orthodoxy, Hippolytus became known as the first "antipope" or "rival pope" in Christian history. He was an accomplished speaker of great learning, influencing a number of important Christian leaders such as Origen of Alexandria. Hippolytus wrote a huge ten-volume treatise called Refutation of All Heresies. In this expansive work, Hippolytus identified as many as twenty-four New Testament books as Scripture (including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation). Unfortunately, Hippolytus was persecuted under Emperor Maximus Thrax and exiled to Sardinia, where he most likely died in the mines. The writings of Hippolytus (like the writings of Irenaeus before him) confirm that the New Testament accounts were already well established in the earliest years of the Christian movement.

As a result of Hippolytus’s exile and martyrdom, this particular chain of custody ends without a clear next link, although it is certain that Hippolytus had many important students who preserved the Scripture with the same passion he had as a student of Irenaeus. While Origen of Alexandria may have considered himself to be a disciple of Hippolytus, we have no concrete evidence that this was the case. To be safe, we simply have to acknowledge that history has not yet revealed the certain identity of Hippolytuss students. One thing we know for sure: the truth about the life and ministry of Jesus (and the canon of Scripture) was established in the first century. The eyewitness account of John (along with the other New Testament documents) was recorded and handed down to his disciples.

Johns students recorded this teaching and identified the sources for later generations. Long before the Codex Sinaiticus was first penned or the Council of Laodicea formalized the canon, the New Testament was established as a reliable eyewitness account.

PAUL'S STUDENTS CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS

The apostle Paul (ca. AD 5-67) wrote the largest portion of the New Testament and was closely associated with several key apostles, historians, and eyewitnesses who helped to document and guard the Scripture we have today. Paul’s friend Luke, for example, was a meticulous historian with access to the eyewitnesses and a personal involvement in the history of the New Testament church. As described in chapter 11, Paul quoted Luke’s version of the gospel in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Those who knew Paul were probably familiar with the writings of Luke. Paul had several key students and disciples who protected and transmitted his writings (along with the emerging writings of other eyewitnesses, including Luke) to the next generation of Christian leaders. Paul’s chain of custody is much harder to trace than that of John, but we can follow Paul’s influence through the early leadership in Rome to places as far away as Syria.

PAUL TAUGHT LINUS AND CLEMENT OF ROME

Paul spent his last years in Rome under house arrest, awaiting trial. During this time he had free access to other believers and taught many men who would eventually lead the church. We know two of these men specifically. Irenaeus described a man named Linus as one of Paul's coworkers (Paul identifies a coworker named Linus specifically in 2 Timothy 4:21 along with Eubulus, Pudens, and Claudia). History tells us that Linus was born in Tuscany to Herculanus and Claudia, and became the pope of Rome following the deaths of Peter and Paul.

[PETER  AND/OR  PAUL  WERE  NEVER  THE  POPE  AT  ROME;  THAT  IS  A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  TEACHING;  JUST  BECAUSE  YOU  ARE  IN  A  CITY  FOR  SOME  LENGTH  OF  TIME,  DOES  NOT  MAKE  YOU  AUTOMATICALLY  THE  “BISHOP”  OR  “POPE”  -  Keith Hunt]

History is unclear on the precise order of popes in these first years, and some early records indicate that Clement of Rome may have preceded Linus.146 Clement was also a coworker of Paul (mentioned specifically in Philippians 4:3), and he became an important assistant to Paul and Peter in the first years in Rome.147 In fact, Peter appears to have elevated both Linus and Clement to positions of leadership so that he could focus on prayer and preaching. Clement wrote several letters, and one of these letters (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians) survives as the earliest Christian document outside the New Testament. Clement’s letter (written in AD 80-140) was written to encourage the Corinthian church and call it to holy living. Clement referenced a number of examples from the Old Testament and also referred to the life and teaching of Jesus as it was passed on to him from Paul and Peter. In fact, Clement talked about the chain of custody that existed from the apostolic eyewitnesses to his own second-generation readers. Clement told the Corinthian believers that "the Apostles for our sakes received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ then is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both therefore came in due order from the will of God."148 Clement understood the "appointed order" of the eyewitness "chain of custody." When examining the letter carefully, scholars have observed that Clement quoted or alluded to seven New Testament books (Mark, Matthew or John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians) as he penned his work. Clement also described the person and work of Jesus, echoing the description of Jesus that was first communicated by the eyewitnesses. Clements description of Jesus was very similar to the description offered by Ignatius and Polycarp:

The prophets predicted the life and ministry of Jesus.149

Jesus provided His disciples with important instruction.150

He taught principles as described by Mark and Luke.151

He was humble and unassuming.152

He was whipped.153

He suffered and died for our salvation.154

He died as a payment for our sin.155

He was resurrected from the dead.156

He is alive and reigning with God.157

His resurrection makes our resurrection certain.158

We are saved by the "grace" of God159 through faith in Jesus.160

He is "Lord"161 and the Son of God.162

He possesses eternal glory and majesty.163

All creation belongs to Him.164

He is our "refuge"165 and our "High Priest."166

He is our "defender" and "helper."167

The church belongs to Him.168

While it is clear that Clement presumed his readers already understood the truth about Jesus from the Gospels he quoted, Clement still referenced many attributes of Jesus that were consistent with the picture painted by Peter, Paul, and the gospel writers. Clement certainly wrote much more than this single letter and may have affirmed an even larger number of texts. His surviving letter to the Corinthians provides us with another link in the chain of custody, acknowledging the delivery of the eyewitness accounts from the original eyewitnesses to the next generation of believers.

CLEMENT PASSED THE TRUTH FROM EVARISTUS TO PIUS 

Linus and Clement of Rome established the lineage of bishops who followed Paul (and Peter) at Rome.169 They taught, discussed, and passed the eyewitness Scripture along to their successors, from Evaristus (AD ?-109) to Alexander I (AD ?—115) to Sixtus I (AD ?-125) to Telesphorus (AD ?-136) to Hyginus (AD ?-l40), to Pius I (AD 90-154). The writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement demonstrate that the second generation of Christian leaders already considered the writings of the eyewitnesses to be precious Scripture. It’s reasonable to conclude that the papal leaders who followed Clement were raised to appreciate and honor the primacy of the eyewitness accounts as well; they understood the importance of guarding these accounts for future generations.

PIUS I AND JUSTIN MARTYR GUARDED THE ACCOUNTS 

In the early years of the Christian church, the city of Rome was filled with people who either came to faith there (under the preaching of the apostles or their disciples) or traveled there after coming to faith somewhere else in the Roman Empire. One such person, Justin of Caesarea (AD 103-165), became an important philosopher and contributor to the history of Christianity. Justin Martyr, as he came to be known, was one of the earliest Christian apologists.170 He was born in Flavia Neapolis (now Nablus, Palestine) to Greek parents. He was raised as a pagan and called himself a Samaritan, but he studied philosophy and eventually converted to Christianity. He taught Christian doctrine in Rome when Pius I was leading the Christian community. He wrote several voluminous and important works, including the First Apology, Second Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho. In these early Christian texts, Justin Martyr quoted or alluded to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation. While we don’t have surviving writings from some of the earliest bishops and popes of Rome (including Pius I), Justin Martyr provided us with a contemporary glimpse of how these men viewed the eyewitness accounts and guarded them for the future.

JUSTIN TAUGHT TATIAN

Not everyone who played a role in the Scriptural chain of custody had orthodox beliefs. Many recognized (and wrote about) the eyewitness accounts, while misinterpreting them for themselves and their followers. Tatian the Assyrian (AD 120-180) was one such example.171

Tatian was born (and probably died) in Assyria. He came to Rome, however, for some period of time and studied the Old Testament. He met and became a student of Justin Martyr and converted to Christianity. He studied in Rome with Justin for many years and eventually opened a Christian school there. Over time, he developed a strict form of Christianity that forbade marriage and the eating of meat. When Justin died, Tatian was driven from the church in Rome. He traveled to Syria and eventually wrote his most famous contribution, the Diatessaron, a biblical paraphrase, or harmony which recognized the existence of the four eyewitness accounts of the Gospels, even as it sought to combine them into one document. The earliest church records in Syria (traced back to Tatian) identified an early canon that included the Diatessaron, the letters of Paul, and the book of Acts. Tatian’s work, combined with this ancient canonical list, acknowledges the early formation of the canon in the chain of custody from Paul to the late second century.

History does not provide us with precise information about the next link in this particular chain of custody. In any case, this custodial sequence from Paul acknowledges that the eyewitness accounts existed, were treated as sacred Scripture from a very early time, and were handed down with care from one generation to another. All of this happened many years before any council determined what would officially become the New Testament record.

PETER'S STUDENTS CONFIRMED THE ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS

The apostle Peter (ca. 1 BC-AD 67) was perhaps the oldest of Jesus’s disciples. He was also known as Simon Cephas (from the Aramaic version of his name). He was the son of Jonah (John) and was raised in Bethsaida (in Galilee). He was a fisherman (along with his brother Andrew) when he first met Jesus and quickly became a disciple. His story is well known, replete with human failures and triumphs. After the ascension, Peter established the church in Antioch and served there as its bishop for seven years. He eventually traveled to Rome and became bishop there as well. [NO,  THERE WAS A PETER OR SIMON THAT WENT TO ROME BUT IT WAS NOT THE APOSTLE PETER AS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOUND LIKE TO CLAIM  -  Keith Hunt].   In chapter 5 we discussed the evidence that supports the claim that Mark authored Peters eyewitness account in the gospel of Mark. This gospel (like the gospel of John) is a critical piece of evidence from the "crime scene," and Peter carefully handed it (along with other eyewitness texts that were emerging in the first century) to his own students and disciples.

PETER COMMUNICATED THROUGH MARK

John Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, and his childhood home was well known to Peter (Acts 12:12-14). Mark became so close to Peter that the apostle described him as "my son" (1 Pet. 5:13). Peter preserved his eyewitness testimony through his primary disciple and student, who then passed it on to the next generation in what we now recognize as the "gospel of Mark."

MARK TAUGHT ANIANUS, AVILIUS, KEDRON, PRIMUS, AND JUSTUS Mark established the church in Alexandria and immediately started preaching and baptizing new believers. History records the fact that he had at least five disciples, and these men eventually became church leaders in North Africa.172 Mark discipled and taught Anianus (AD ?-82), Avilius (AD ? -95), Kedron (AD ? -106), Primus (ca. AD 40-118), and Justus (AD ?-135), passing on his gospel along with the other early New Testament accounts from apostolic eyewitnesses. These five men eventually became bishops of Alexandria (one after the other) following Marks death. They faithfully preserved the eyewitness accounts and passed them on, one generation to another.

JUSTUS PASSED THE TRUTH TO PANTAENUS

While Mark was still alive, he appointed his disciple Justus as the director of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. This important school became an esteemed place of learning where the eyewitness accounts and Scriptures were collected and guarded. A key figure in the early development of this school was an ex-Stoic philosopher who converted to Christianity. His name was Pantaenus.173 He became an important teacher and missionary, traveling east of Alexandria (perhaps as far as India) and reporting that believers were already established in the East and were using the gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew letters. In any event, Pantaenus provided another important link in the chain of custody because the writing of one of his students survives to this day, chronicling and identifying the books of the New Testament that were already considered sacred. [IF THERE EVER WAS A HEBREW VERSION OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, IT HAS NOT BEEN PRESERVED,  WHEREAS  THE  GREEK  MSS  OF MATTHEW IS PRESERVED IN VARIOUS  AND MANY MSS  -  Keith Hunt]

PANTAENUS TAUGHT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

Titus Flavius Clemens (ca. AD 150-215) was also known as Clement of Alexandria.174 He was a student of Pantaenus and eventually became the leader of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Clement was very familiar with the pagan literature of his time and wrote extensively. Three important volumes (the Protrepticus, the Paedagogus, and the Stromatd) address Christian morality and conduct. Most importantly, Clement discussed the existing Scripture of the time (as it was handed down to him by Pantaenus) and quoted or alluded to all the New Testament books except for Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. Clement appears to have received and accepted the same New Testament documents that were known to his predecessors in the "chain of custody."

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA TAUGHT ORIGEN

Origen (ca. AD 185-254) carefully preserved and identified those ancient eyewitness accounts used by the Christian church around the Mediterranean. He was an Egyptian who came to faith and eventually taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria.175 He wrote prolifically and penned commentaries for nearly every book of the Bible. Along the way, he quoted all of the New Testament books. He did express hesitation about James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John, but included them in his list of reliable orthodox eyewitness documents. Origen played a pivotal role because he had a number of students who became important links in the New Testament chain of custody.

PAMPHILUS OF CAESAREA ADOPTED ORIGEN'S WORK 

In his later life, Origen fled Alexandria (under the persecution of an archbishop who expelled Origen because he had not been ordained with proper permission) and setlled in Caesarea Maritima. Pamphilus176 also setlled in Caesarea Maritima after a long stay in Alexandria, where he became devoted to the works of Origen and even wrote a five-volume treatise called Apology fir Origen. Pamphilus guarded and defended the work of Origen, and he also accepted the eyewitness accounts of Scripture as authoritative, expressing his confidence in these documents to his own pupils.

PAMPHILUS OF CAESAREA TAUGHT EUSEBIUS

One of Pamphiluss students was Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. AD 263-339), a man who later became an important church historian, church father, and devoted student who documented Pamphilus’s career in a three-volume work called Vita.177 Eusebius was a prolific writer, and much of his work survives to this day, including his Church History. A close survey of Eusebius’s work reveals that he recognized and identified twenty-six New Testament books as Scripture. He strongly affirmed Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation, and less-strongly affirmed James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. This chain of scriptural custody, from Peter to Eusebius, brings us well into the period of time in which the Codex Sinaiticus was penned and to the doorstep of the Council of Laodicea. It is clear that the eyewitness accounts and writings of the apostles were collected, preserved, and transmitted from generation to generation during this span of time.

The New Testament chain of custody preserved the primacy and sacred importance of the eyewitness documents and delivered them faithfully to those who would later identify them publicly in the councils that established our present canon of Scripture. These councils did not create the canon or the current version of Jesus we know so well; they simply acknowledged the canon and description of Jesus that had been provided by the eyewitnesses.

THE LEAST WE CAN LEARN

Now let’s imagine for a moment that all the alleged Christian eyewitness accounts have been destroyed. Imagine that all we have available to us is the written record of a few students of these supposed eyewitnesses. If this were the case, we would have to rely on the writings of Mark, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement. This remaining record would certainly be sufficient for us to learn the truth about Jesus; after all, Mark was tasked with chronicling the memoir of Peter and wrote a thorough account. So lets make it a little more challenging. Let’s remove Mark's gospel from consideration and force ourselves to consider only the nonbiblical letters of the other three students, even though these students made no conscious effort to record the details of Jesus's life and ministry. What would we learn about Jesus from just these three men? Would their nominal description affirm what our twenty-first-century Bible tells us?

From the earliest nonbiblical records, we would learn the following: Jesus had been predicted by the Old Testament prophets; He was a man in the line of David, conceived by the Holy Spirit as the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, and announced with a star. He came forth from God and manifested God's will and knowledge. He was baptized by John the Baptist, lived a humble, unassuming, perfect, and sinless life, spoke the words of God, and taught people many important divine truths (including the principles we recognize from the Sermon on the Mount). Although Jesus was anointed with oil, He was unjustly treated and condemned, whipped, and ultimately executed on the cross. This execution took place during the government of Pontius Pilate and the reign of Herod theTetrarch. Jesus's death was a personal sacrifice He offered to God in our behalf as a payment for the debt of our sin. Jesus proved His divinity by physically resurrecting from the dead, appearing to Peter and the other disciples, eating with them, and encouraging them to touch Him and see for themselves. The disciples were so emboldened by their observations of the risen Jesus that they became fearless, understanding that Jesus's resurrection ensured eternal life and the resurrection for all of those who placed their faith in Him. Jesus returned to God the Father and now reigns in heaven, even as He lives in everyone who has accepted His offer of forgiveness and salvation. Jesus is the "Door," the "Bread of Life," the "Eternal Word," the "Son of God," our "High Priest," "Savior," "Master," "Guardian," "Helper," "Refuge," and "Lord." Jesus and the Father are one; Jesus possesses eternal glory and majesty. All creation belongs to Him and is subject to Him. Jesus will judge the living and the dead. Jesus is "God."

We would learn all of this, not on the basis of what is taught in the gospel accounts, but on the basis of what is taught by the earliest first-century students of the gospel writers (and only three of them, at that)! The letters of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement confirm the accuracy of the Gospels. Even if, as skeptics, we had some doubt about the minute details that exist in each eyewitness account, there can be no doubt about the major themes and claims of the Gospels. Jesus was described as God, walked with His disciples, taught the masses, died on a cross, and rose from the dead. This version of Jesus is not a late invention or exaggeration; it is the version of Jesus that existed from the very first telling. This version of Jesus was witnessed and accurately described by the gospel writers and confirmed by their students. Unlike the man I interviewed, Jassen, whose early story was not aligned with the version he provided twenty years later, the earliest account of Jesus’s story (as given by the eyewitnesses and their students in the first century) is aligned with the version we have two thousand years later.

THE JEWISH RECORDS DIVISION

But how do we know if the other gospel details (not specifically mentioned by the students of the apostles) are accurate? How do we know that these portions of the Gospels weren't corrupted in the period of time spanning from the first century to the inking of Codex Sinaiticus? I came to trust the detective’s notes in Jasse’s case because I had confidence in the record-keeping ability of my records division. I understood the precise and careful manner in which they copied and preserved the case files. Is there any good reason to believe that the primitive, first-century Christians would be equally willing and capable of such preservation?

THE EYEWITNESSES WERE CONSCIENTIOUS AND PROTECTIVE

In chapter 4 we looked at the role the apostles played as eyewitnesses. They clearly understood the gravity and importance of their testimony. The apostles recognized that their role in God’s plan was simply to tell others about their experiences with Jesus and their observations of His resurrection. Its reasonable that people who saw themselves as critical eyewitnesses would be careful to protect the accuracy of their testimony. In the earliest years, their contribution came in the form of verbal testimony. That's reasonable, given the sense of urgency the apostles felt as they eagerly awaited the imminent return of Jesus. But as the months and years passed without the arrival of Christ, the apostles inked their testimony so their observations could be shared with local church congregations. If the Gospels were written early (during the time in which these eyewitnesses actually lived), it is reasonable to expect that the witnesses would fact-check the content of their testimony as it was being told to others. If, for example, Mark's gospel was written as early as the circumstantial evidence in chapter 11 suggests, it's reasonable to expect that Peter would have caught (and corrected) any errors.

THE COPYISTS AND SCRIBES WERE METICULOUS

The ancient Jewish religious culture was already well established in the first century, and it was from this culture that the apostles and first believers emerged. It's clear that the Jews guarded Scripture with extreme care and precision. From the postexile time of Ezra (and even before), there were priests (Deut. 31:24-26) and scribes (called Sopherini) who were given the responsibility of copying and meticulously caring for the sacred text. The scribes continued to work in Jesus’s day and were mentioned throughout the New Testament by the eyewitnesses who observed them alongside the Pharisees and other Jewish religious leaders. The Old Testament Scriptures were revered and protected during this period of time, largely because early believers considered them to be the holy Word of God along with the New Testament documents. Paul described Luke's gospel as Scripture (1 Tun. 5:17-18), and Peter also described Paul's letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul told the local churches to treat his letters accordingly, making them available to other congregations so they could read them during their meetings (Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). It's reasonable to conclude that the New Testament documents were handled in a way that was similar to the manner in which other ancient Scripture was cherished and preserved. It's difficult to know with complete certainty the exact method in which the first-century Christian scribes copied and cared for their sacred texts, but we do know that they worked within a religious tradition that spanned hundreds of years, both before and after the first century. The Masoretic tradition, for example, gives us a glimpse into the obsessive care that Jewish scribes historically took with their sacred texts. Scribes known as the Masoretes (a group of Jewish copyists living and working primarily in Tiberias and Jerusalem) took over the precise job of copying the ancient Scripture and transmitting it for later generations. They developed something now known as the MasoreticText.178 These documents are recognized as an incredibly trustworthy replica of the original Scripture, and we’ve come to trust these texts because

The Meticulous Masoretes

The Masoretes established comprehensive procedures to protect the text against changes:

When they noted an obvious error in the text, they labeled it as a "kethibh" ("to be written") and placed a correction called a "qere" ("to be read") in the margin.

When they considered a word textually, grammatically, or exegetically questionable, they placed dots above the word.

They kept detailed statistics as a means of guarding against error. Leviticus 8:8, for example, was identified as the middle verse of the Torah. In Leviticus 10:16, the word "darash" was identified as middle word in the Torah, and the "waw" located in the Hebrew word gachon in Leviticus 11:42 was identified as the middle letter of the Torah.

They also placed statistics at the end of each book, including the total number of verses, the total number of words, and the total number of letters. By assembling statistics such as these, they could measure each book mathematically to see if there was any copyist error. (Refer to Gleason Archer's A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.)

We understand the manner in which they were copied. To ensure the accuracy of the Masoretic copies, the Masoretes developed a number of strict guidelines to guarantee that every fresh copy was an exact reproduction of the original. The rules of the Masoretes were every bit as comprehensive as any set of regulations used in modern-day records divisions; they copied and handled their documents with all the precision available to them.

History has demonstrated the remarkable accuracy of these ancient scribes who worked under the conviction that the documents they were copying were divine in nature. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran confirms their amazing ability. In 1947, a Bedouin herdsman found some unusual clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. The jars contained a number of scrolls revealing the religious beliefs of monastic farmers who lived in the valley from 150 BC to AD 70. When this group saw the Romans invade the region, it apparently put its cherished scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament and, most importantly, a complete copy of the book of Isaiah. This scroll was dated to approximately 100 BC; it was incredibly important to historians and textual experts because it was approximately one thousand years older than any Masoretic copy of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scroll version of Isaiah allowed scholars to compare the text over this period of time to see if copyists had been conscientious. Scholars were amazed by what they discovered.

A comparison of the Qumran manuscripts of Isaiah "proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text."179 Some of the 5 percent differences were simply a matter of spelling (like you might experience when using the word favor instead of favour). Some were grammatical differences (like the presence of the word and to connect two ideas or objects within a sentence). Finally, some were the addition of a word for the sake of clarity (like the addition of the Hebrew word for "light" to the end of 53:11, following "they shall see"). None of these grammatical variations changed the meaning of the text in any way.

What was it that compelled the ancient scribes to treat these documents with such precision and meticulous care? It was clearly their belief that the documents themselves were sacred and given to them by God. When Paul and Peter identified the New Testament documents (such as the gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul) as Scripture, they ensured that the documents would be honored and cared for in a manner befitting the Masoretic tradition. The first-century Christian scribes didn't have access to photocopiers, microfiche, or digital imaging like modern police-department records divisions do, but they understood the importance of divine record keeping, and they used the first-century equivalent in technology (the meticulous tradition of their predecessors) to carefully guarantee the accuracy of the texts.

CONSISTENT AND WELL PRESERVED

Given the evidence from the chain of custody and what we know about the diligence of the first-century copyists, what is the most reasonable inference we can draw about the accuracy of the Gospels? Unlike Jassen’s statement in my cold-case investigation, the message of the apostles appears unchanged over the span of time; it is the same in the first and twenty-first centuries. Like the notes from the first detective, the details of the first-century account appear to have been adequately preserved. The Jewish records division was capable and efficient; it copied and guarded the eyewitness accounts over time.

SO, WHY DO SOME CONTINUE TO DENY IT?

Some are still skeptical of the accuracy of the Gospels, in spite of the strong circumstantial evidence that supports such a conclusion. Let s see if a little abductive reasoning can help us determine if any of the objections of critics are reasonable when they describe the Scriptures as "fictitious."

IGNATIUS, POLYCARP, AND CLEMENT DIDN'T QUOTE SCRIPTURE PRECISELY

Some have argued that the writings of the first-century students of the apostles either cannot be authenticated or fail to precisely quote the Gospels in a way that would vouch for their accuracy. These critics claim that the letters attributed to Ignatius, for example, are not truly from this student of John. Many have also argued that those passages where these second-generation students appear to be quoting from a gospel (such as their references to the Sermon on the Mount) are not precise word-for-word quotes; they argue that the students were only alluding to vague and unreliable early oral accounts that hadn't yet been inked on papyrus and were corrupted long before they were ever finalized.

BUT...

While there has been controversy related to some of Ignatius;s letters, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the seven letters we've isolated in our chain of custody. Yes, there are additional letters that appear late in history and are falsely attributed to Ignatius, but the seven letters we've referenced are listed in the earliest records of Ignatius's work, and they are corroborated by Polycarp's letter (which refers to Ignatius).

It is true that Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement often referenced passages of Scripture in a way that captured the meaning of the passage without quoting the specific verse word for word. But this was not uncommon of authors at this time in history. Paul also paraphrased Scripture (the Old Testament) on occasion (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:9, where Paul is likely paraphrasing both Isa. 64:4 and Isa. 65:17). Polycarp's and Clement's use of paraphrase is not evidence that the New Testament documents didn't exist at the time these second-generation authors wrote their letters any more than Paul's use of a paraphrase is evidence that the Old Testament did not exist when he wrote his letters.

………………..

WHEN  YOU  UNDERSTAND  THE  TRUTH  CONCERNING  THE  CANONIZATION  OF  THE  BIBLE,  AND  ESPECIALLY  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  BEING  CANONIZED  BY  THE  FIRST  CENTURY  APOSTLES  THEMSELVES,  WITHIN  THE  FIRST  CENTURY,  THEN  WE  CAN  SEE  CLEARLY  THOSE  SCRIPTURES  WOULD  BE  PASSED  ON  TO  STUDENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  AND  THEN  THEIR  STUDENTS  TO  OTHER  NEXT  GENERATION  STUDENTS,  AND  SO  FORTH.  WE  SEE,  WITH  GOD’S  HELP  THROUGH  HIS  HOLY  SPIRIT,  THE  CONTINUOUS  ACCURACY  OF  THE  WHOLE  BIBLE  WITH  ALL  THE  BOOKS  CANONIZED  AS  WE  HAVE  TODAY  IN  THE  JKV;  BETTER  STILL  AS  J. P. GREEN  HAS  IN  HIS  INTERLINEAR  HEBREW/ENGLISH  OLD  TESTAMENT,  AND  HIS  INTERLINEAR GREEK/ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT.

Keith Hunt