Answering Dan Wallace's question on historical reliability of the New Testament

Daniel Wallace allows customer to purchase a "course" that will help them answer certain questions:



Perhaps my input will help Dr. Wallace ensure his paying customers obtain more bang for their buck:

Can we trust the NT documents?

Can we "trust" the Apocrypha?  Depends on what you mean.  Yes, they are generally historically reliable, but that's a far cry from saying every last little detail they mention is historical truth.

Whether a historical source can be "trusted" often cannot be answered simply "yes" or "no", because all sources are imperfect.  Here are some justifications for remaining skeptical of the accuracy or honesty of some of the NT writers:

1 - Apostle Paul admitted his willingness to give his audience a false impression of his true beliefs, if he thought doing so would increase the number of his followers:

 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.
 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;
 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.
 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
 (1 Cor. 9:18-23 NAS)

I've been asking fundies for years how Paul could believe himself free from the law, yet present himself to orthodox Jews as if he believed himself under the law, and do all this without giving a false impression of his true theological convictions.  Apparently, if Paul was honest, he would have made sure when he took a Jewish vow with others in Acts 21:18-26, that Jews who took the vow with him correctly understood that he believed these laws were waxing old, and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).  What are the odds, though, that Paul clearly specified this particular nuanced form of his beliefs to them?  One has to wonder: when Paul had Timothy circumcised "because of the Jews" (Acts 16:3), was he telling those Jews, during the surgery, that Paul regards everything distinctly Jewish in his pre-Christian life as feces (Philippians 3:4-8, v. 8 "rubbish", Greek: skubalon, feces, waste)?

Sort of makes you wonder whether the "all things to all men" hypocrisy also affected his epistles.  Does Paul tell Christians to obey secular authorities (Romans 13:1-3) because he seriously believes this, or solely because he happens to be imprisoned at Rome, and recognizes that telling his followers to obey secular authority will make Rome look a bit more favorably on him?

2 - Clement of Alexandria's beliefs about gospel origins justify suspicion toward gospel accuracy:

Quoted by Eusebius in Church History, Book 6, ch. 14

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Marks had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly for- bade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.
Schaff, P. (2000). The Post-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software

Clement's statement that the gospels with the genealogies were written first, (Matthew and Luke) is held false by the majority of Christian bible scholars, who hold that Mark was the first gospel written.

Clement's statement that Peter didn't discourage Mark's gospel writing but also didn't encourage it, raises an eyebrow or three:  If Peter believed, like modern-day conservative Evangelicals do, that Mark's literary effort was the inerrant word of God, would Peter have been so apathetic toward the inerrant word of God?
(Peter's apathy itself raises problematic questions itself:  How could Peter possibly refuse to encourage the writing down of his preaching?  Was there an early apostolic belief that Jesus would come back within the lifetimes of the apostles, no need to publish written works?   Did Peter believe written gospels lacked the presence of the Holy Spirit that presumably was present in oral preaching?  If Clement is wrong in this information, doesn't Eusebius' uncritical quotation indicate that incorrect views about the apostles were capable of successfully duping even the earliest church fathers?)

Clement's statement that John wrote his gospel in a "spiritual" way that was distinct from the "external facts" type reporting done by the Synoptic authors, necessarily requires that in this context, "spiritual" meant some type of literary endeavor that had John doing more in his gospel than reporting the "external facts".  If Clement is telling the truth, then it is a strong argument that the reason most of the high Christological sayings of Jesus in John's gospel aren't paralleled in the Synoptics, is because John's materials are the "spiritual" parts John was adding to his gospel, which were different in nature than the "external facts" (i.e., different than sayings the historical/biological human Jesus actually mouthed).

Indeed, if Matthew had heard Jesus utter the high-Chistological sayings now confined to John's gospel, is it likely Matthew would have knowingly "chose to exclude" such strong supporting material?  If you can believe that, maybe you can believe the author of a book entitled "Sexual Scandals of the Bill Clinton Presidency" would knowingly "choose to exclude" all mention of the Monica Lewinsky affair (!?).  Yes, anything is always possible, but the person who wins the history debate is the person who shows her view to have more probability of being true than the other theories.

3 - If the Christian scholarly consensus be true that Mark was the earliest published gospel, well, Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth story.  You will say Mark didn't think it necessary to repeat what his intended audience already believed, but that obviously speculative answer has the following faults

   a) that assumes without evidence that Mark's intended audience surely did believe Jesus was born of a virgin, something you cannot establish,
   b) saying Mark didn't wish to repeat, contradicts the testimony of Clement, supra, which is generally the same from other church fathers, namely, that Mark's specific purpose in writing down the preaching of Peter, was to exactly "repeat" for the requesting church the gospel material Peter had previously preached to them...gee, maybe Peter didn't preach the virgin birth?  A doctrine that would support Mark's theme "Jesus is Son of God" more powerfully than most of Mark's currently canonical material?
   c) your motive for trivializing Mark's silence on the virgin birth is nothing other than your presupposition that bible inerrancy (and thus agreement of bible-authors on all doctrines) is an untouchable icon of cherished truth.

4 - Luke, by saying in his preface that he obtained his info from eyewitnesses, leaves the false impression that eyewitnesses were his primary source material. But if the consensus of Christian scholarship is correct in saying Luke borrowed much text from Mark's earlier gospel, then Luke's primary source was not eyewitnesses, but only hearsay, because Mark is not an eyewitness (and it is  rather convoluted and trifling to say Mark's dependence on Peter means Mark's account should be viewed as the record of an eyewitness).  That is a justifiable reason to be suspicious that Luke was willing to give a false impression, and like any good historian, he would know a lie would have better chance of being successfully deceptive if he spins it in just the right subtle way and cloaks it with other historically valid references.

5 - Another blow to Luke's general credibility is his account of the debate between Judaizers and Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).  How does Luke represent the apostles?  99% of the chapter is devoted to the arguments of the apostles and their actions afterward.  How does Luke represent the Judaizers?  He quotes a short summary sentence of their basic position (15:1), then repeats it once (v. 5), that's it.  Suppose you surfed to an atheist blog where the atheist author described a debate between a Christian and some other atheist, not otherwise recorded.  The atheist blogger only quotes two sentences from the Christian in that debate, but devotes about 40 paragraphs exclusively to what his fellow atheist said in the debate, and what that man did after leaving.  If you would accuse this atheist-blogger of a level of bias that rises above what objectivity would allow, you must say the same about Luke, because he did the same thing.

6 - Peter makes clear in Acts chapter 1 that only those who were direct disciples of Jesus before he died, could possibly qualify as apostles, and further asserts that because Judas fell, there is a "need" to increase the number of apostles back to 12:

 21 "It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
 22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection."
 23 And they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
 24 And they prayed, and said, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two Thou hast chosen
 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:21-26 NAS)

Several problems:  Peter appears to believe the number of legitimate apostles cannot be more or less than 12, which means Paul, the 13th apostle, is false.  The author of Revelation specifies "12 names" of the "12 apostles" in the "12 foundation stones" of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14), which mathematically excludes Apostle # 13, Paul.  Sure, the language is figurative, but the constant repetition of 12 likely draws from the Revelator's belief that those who set the foundation for the new city do not number more than 12. (Some apologists trifle and say Peter was wrong to replace Matthias, but the praying and casting of lots and other things, including no sign of divine disapproval, make clear that the allegedly inspired author of Acts 1 didn't think replacing Judas with Matthias was error).

7 - Many of Paul's initial followers eventually stopped thinking he was a true apostle.  Paul started the Galatian churches, yet remarks with cursing that they apostatized from the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).  Despite the fact that Barnabas was personally chosen by the Holy Spirit to be Paul's ministry helper (Acts 13:2), "even Barnabas" was persuaded by the Judaizers that Paul's views about table fellowship were incorrect (Gal. 2:13).  Paul says nobody stood with him at his first defense but that he was delivered from the lion's mouth anyway (2 Tim. 4:16-17), meaning the defense in question was one he made before secular authorities who had authority to execute him, which thus must have occurred well into his Christian career.  How's that for proving that the 1st century Christians were mightily transformed by the resurrection of Jesus into fearless preachers who would stand by each other to the death?  

Paul also complains of other Christians abandoning him with "You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. (2 Tim. 1:15 NAS).  So it is likely when Luke says Paul was forbbiden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia (Acts 16:6), what really happened is that Paul knew by naturalistic means he would never get any followers in Asia, others agreed, and blindly assumed this must surely mean the "Holy Spirit" is "forbidding" them to go there.  Sort of like the scared man who runs away from a fist fight, then later says he did so because God "forbade" him to fight.  Wrong.

8 - Conservative Christian commentators have stumbled long and hard over Galatians 2:2:

 1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
 (Gal. 2:1-2 NAS)

Why reason does Paul say he chose to speak only in private with those of repute?  "for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."

What potential discovery of running in vain was Paul speaking about?  The answer is not difficult:  Paul was genuinely fearful, before arriving in Jerusalem on this trip, that the original apostles of Jesus might actually disagree in a public way with his version of the gospel.  If they did, that would effectively prove his gospel efforts (running) had been in vain.  So apparently Paul sought to guard against this real possible outcome by meeting with them only in private.  Then, if they disagreed with his version of the gospel, the private nature of the bad news would help mitigate it from spreading and discrediting his ministry.  Commentators say this interpretation is contrary to Paul's stark confidence in the truth of his own beliefs elsewhere, but Paul's desire to meet the higher apostles in private is a powerful textual clue that, at least at this point in time, Paul wasn't the loudmouth confident fire-preaching fanatic he was at other times.

However, the answer is difficult for those who espouse inerrancy, since they cannot plausibly argue for any interpretation of "fear" and "vain" that will harmonize with the context while also harmonizing with the rest of the bible.  Indeed, if we must presume Paul never doubted the truth of his version of the gospel, then why would he be motivated to speak only in private with the higher apostles when presenting his gospel to the Jerusalem church?

Finally, most Christian scholars admit that Matthew took Mark's "Jesus COULD not do many miracles because of their unbelief", and "tones it down" to say "Jesus DID not do many miracles..."

Mark 6:5-6

Matthew 13:58

1 And He went out from there, and He came into His home town; and His disciples followed Him.  2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying,  "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?      3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.     4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household."  5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands upon a few sick people and healed them.  6 And He wondered at their unbelief. And He was going around the villages teaching. (Mk. 6:1-6 NAS)

53 And it came about that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there.  54 And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said,  "Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers?  55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?  56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household."  58 And He did not do many miracles there  because of their unbelief. (Matt. 13:53-58 NAS)

Two problems are created here: If most scholars are correct that Mark is the earliest gospel, and are also correct in their consensus that Matthew borrowed extensively from Mark, then apparently, Matthew did not believe Mark's text constituted the "inerrant" word of God, or he wouldn't have felt compelled to make this change any more than Daniel Wallace feels compelled to replace "word" with "Jesus" in John 1:1.  So the gospel authors changing and modifying the text they drew from allegedly "inerrant" sources is a kick to the inerrantist apologist's teeth.

Second, Matthew's motive for the change is a serious problem, since it is perfectly evident that by changing "could not" to "did not", Matthew hides the fact that the original form of this story spoke against Jesus' level of power.  If you have gospel authors who change each other's texts so as to erase evidence that they disagreed with each other on matters involving Jesus, let's just say you won't be bowling over atheists with the power of the gospel anytime soon...not even if you pray about it first.

How do we know that the NT we have now
is the one the apostles actually wrote down?

Matthew is a case of fatal problems of authorship and text:

1 - Papias said Matthew wrote down the oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialect or style, and all other early fathers commenting on the same issue are unanimous that Matthew wrote in Hebrew "letters".  The English translation of Matthew in your bible does not arise from any Hebrew manuscript, but from manuscripts written in Greek.  Despite the church fathers clearly being interested in which language Matthew wrote in, they never mention him writing a second original in Greek, despite the fact that they make their comments in the 2nd-4th centuries, when any alleged Greek edition by Matthew would have enjoyed no less circulation in the church than the Hebrew version did.  Jerome in "Lives of Ilustrious Men" says Matthew was written in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek in his day by an unknown person.  He would hardly talk like that had a Greek version of Matthew been circulating since the first century. Worse, Wallace himself doesn't think canonical Greek Matthew reads like "translation-Greek", so Wallace kills even the alternative option that canonical Greek Matthew might be a translation from Matthew's Hebrew.  Thus there is good historical reason to say an unknown person exercised a completely unknown degree of influence on the content of Matthew's gospel before you ever read a bible, and as such, Matthew is disqualfied as a resurrection eyewitness because we cannot decide with any reasonable degree of confidence to what extent the material in Matthew 28 goes back to Matthew himself.

2 - Read a book by Bart Ehrman called "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: the effect of early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".

Have errors crept into the text over the centuries?

 Yes, as Wallace admits the "long ending" of Mark 16, present in many manuscripts, actually isn't original.  Wallace may say such textual variant is not historically or doctrinally significant, but it surely is:  Most Christian scholars, including Wallace, believe Mark was the earliest published gospel.  If that is correct, and if the majority + Wallace are also correct that the long ending of Mark was not written by Mark, then the earliest published gospel lacked stories of a resurrected Jesus appearing to others.

This creates reasonable justification to believe that the only reason the other three later gospels contain resurrection appearance stories is because of legendary embellishment.  If you feel your own theory to explain this data has greater explanatory scope and power than the embellishment theory, by all means, post a reply.

If most scholars are correct that Luke borrowed much text from Mark's gospel, then when Luke acknowledges the presence of other written gospels, and says he himself thus chose to write to ensure Theophilus would know the "exact truth" about the Jesus issues, Luke 1:1-3, one of the prior written accounts Luke is likely admitting to correcting, would be Mark's, and now we have not just Matthew but Luke correcting the inerrant word of God.

How do you answer someone who says there are 

thousands of textual variants, so the NT can't be trusted? 

By correctly informing them that Barry Jones's above-cited arguments, justifying skepticism of the NT, are a far bigger problem for apologists than noting the number of textual variations there are in the NT manuscripts :)