Chapter 5

The “New Testament”​—History or Myth?

“The New Testament can be described today as the best-investigated book in world literature.” So said Hans Küng in his book “On Being a Christian.” And he was right. Over the past 300 years, the Christian Greek Scriptures have been more than investigated. They have been more thoroughly dissected and more minutely analyzed than any other literature.

1, 2. (Include introduction.) (a) To what treatment have the Christian Greek Scriptures been subjected over the past 300 years? (b) What strange conclusions have been reached by some investigators?

THE conclusions reached by some investigators have been bizarre. Back in the 19th century, Ludwig Noack in Germany concluded that the Gospel of John was written in 60 C.E. by the beloved disciple​—who, according to Noack, was Judas! The Frenchman Joseph Ernest Renan suggested that the resurrection of Lazarus was likely a fraud arranged by Lazarus himself to support Jesus’ claim of being a miracle worker, while the German theologian Gustav Volkmar insisted that the historical Jesus could not possibly have come forward with Messianic claims.​¹

² Bruno Bauer, on the other hand, decided that Jesus never existed at all! “He maintained that the real creative forces in early Christianity were Philo, Seneca, and the Gnostics. In the end he declared that there never had been a historical Jesus . . . that the genesis of the Christian religion was late in the second century and was from a Judaism in which Stoicism had become dominant.”​²

3. What opinion about the Bible do many still hold?

³ Today, few hold such extreme ideas. But if you read the works of modern scholars, you will find many still believe that the Christian Greek Scriptures contain legend, myth, and exaggeration. Is this true?

When Were They Written?

4. (a) Why is it important to know when the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written? (b) What are some opinions about the time of writing of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

⁴ It takes time for myths and legends to develop. So the question, When were these books written?, is important. Michael Grant, a historian, says that the historical writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures were begun “thirty or forty years after Jesus’ death.”​⁴ Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright cited C. C. Torrey as concluding “that all the Gospels were written before 70 A.D. and that there is nothing in them which could not have been written within twenty years of the Crucifixion.” Albright’s own opinion was that their writing was completed “not later than about 80 A.D.” Others come up with slightly different estimates, but most agree that the writing of the “New Testament” was completed by the end of the first century.

5, 6. What should we conclude from the fact that the Christian Greek Scriptures were written not too long after the events they record?

⁵ What does this mean? Albright concludes: “All we can say is that a period of between twenty and fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus.”​⁵ Professor Gary Habermas adds: “The Gospels are quite close to the period of time which they record, while ancient histories often describe events which took place centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully derive the events even from these ancient periods of time.”​⁶

⁶ In other words, the historical parts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are worthy of at least as much credence as secular histories. Certainly, in the few decades between the events of early Christianity and their being recorded in writing, there was no time for myths and legends to develop and be universally accepted.

Eyewitness Testimony

7, 8. (a) Who were still alive while the Christian Greek Scriptures were being written and circulated? (b) What must we conclude in line with the comment of Professor F. F. Bruce?

⁷ This is especially true in view of the fact that many of the accounts speak of eyewitness testimony. The writer of the Gospel of John said: “This is the disciple [the disciple that Jesus loved] that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things.” (John 21:24) The writer of the book of Luke says: “Those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us.” (Luke 1:2) The apostle Paul, speaking of those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, said: “Most of [them] remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death.”​—1 Corinthians 15:6.

⁸ In this connection, Professor F. F. Bruce makes a keen observation: “It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. . . . The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).”​⁷

Is the Text Trustworthy?

9, 10. As far as the Christian Greek Scriptures are concerned, of what can we be certain?

⁹ Is it possible that these eyewitness testimonies were accurately recorded but later corrupted? In other words, were myths and legends introduced after the original writing was completed? We have already seen that the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures is in better condition than any other ancient literature. Kurt and Barbara Aland, scholars of the Greek text of the Bible, list almost 5,000 manuscripts that have survived from antiquity down to today, some from as early as the second century C.E.​⁸ The general testimony of this mass of evidence is that the text is essentially sound. Additionally, there are many ancient translations​—the earliest dating to about the year 180 C.E.​—that help to prove that the text is accurate.​⁹

¹⁰ Hence, by any reckoning, we can be sure that legends and myths did not infiltrate into the Christian Greek Scriptures after the original writers finished their work. The text we have is substantially the same as the one that the original writers penned, and its accuracy is confirmed by the fact that contemporaneous Christians accepted it. Can we, then, check the historicity of the Bible by comparing it with other ancient histories? To some extent, yes.

The Documentary Evidence

11. To what extent does external documentary evidence support the historical accounts in the Christian Greek Scriptures?

¹¹ In fact, for events in the lives of Jesus and his apostles, documentary evidence apart from the Bible is quite limited. This is only to be expected, since in the first century, Christians were a relatively small group that did not get involved in politics. But the evidence that secular history does provide agrees with what we read in the Bible.

12. What does Josephus tell us about John the Baptizer?

¹² For example, after Herod Antipas suffered a resounding military defeat, the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in 93 C.E., said: “To some of the Jews the destruction of Herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God.”​¹⁰ Thus Josephus confirms the Bible account that John the Baptizer was a righteous man who preached repentance and who was executed by Herod.​—Matthew 3:1-12; 14:11.

13. How does Josephus support the historicity of James and of Jesus himself?

¹³ Josephus also mentions James, the half brother of Jesus, who, the Bible tells us, did not initially follow Jesus but later became a prominent elder in Jerusalem. (John 7:3-5; Galatians 1:18, 19) He documents James’ arrest in these words: “[The high priest Ananus] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”​¹¹ In writing these words, Josephus additionally confirms that “Jesus, who was called the Christ” was a real, historical person.

14, 15. What support does Tacitus give to the Bible record?

¹⁴ Other early writers too refer to things mentioned in the Greek Scriptures. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus’ preaching around Palestine met with a wide response. When he was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, his followers were confused and disheartened. Soon afterward, these same disciples boldly filled Jerusalem with the message that their Lord had been resurrected. In a few years, Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire.​—Matthew 4:25; 26:31; 27:24-26; Acts 2:23, 24, 36; 5:28; 17:6.

¹⁵ Witness to the truth of this comes from the Roman historian Tacitus, who was no friend of Christianity. Writing soon after 100 C.E., he tells of Nero’s cruel persecution of the Christians and adds: “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself.”​¹²

16. What historical event referred to in the Bible is also referred to by Suetonius?

¹⁶ At Acts 18:2 the Bible writer refers to the fact that “[the Roman emperor] Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome.” Second-century Roman historian Suetonius also refers to this expulsion. In his work The Deified Claudius, the historian says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”​¹³ If Chrestus here refers to Jesus Christ and if the events in Rome followed the pattern in other cities, then the riots were not actually at the instigation of Christ (that is, Christ’s followers). Rather, they were the Jews’ violent response to the faithful preaching activity of Christians.

17. What sources that were available to Justin Martyr in the second century supported the Bible account of Jesus’ miracles and his death?

¹⁷ Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: “That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”​¹⁴ In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus’ miracles, regarding which he says: “That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”​¹⁵ True, these “Acts,” or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

The Archaeological Evidence

18. What support does archaeology give to the existence of Pontius Pilate?

¹⁸ Archaeological discoveries have also illustrated or confirmed what we read in the Greek Scriptures. Thus, in 1961 the name of Pontius Pilate was found in an inscription in the ruins of a Roman theater at Caesarea.​¹⁶ Until this discovery, there had been only limited evidence, apart from the Bible itself, of the existence of this Roman ruler.

19, 20. What Bible personalities mentioned by Luke (in Luke and Acts) have been attested to by archaeology?

¹⁹ In Luke’s Gospel, we read that John the Baptizer began his ministry “when . . . Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene.” (Luke 3:1) Some doubted that statement because Josephus mentioned a Lysanias who ruled Abilene and who died in 34 B.C.E., long before the birth of John. However, archaeologists have uncovered an inscription in Abilene mentioning another Lysanias who was tetrarch (district ruler) during the reign of Tiberius, who was ruling as Caesar in Rome when John began his ministry.​¹⁷ This could easily have been the Lysanias to whom Luke was referring.

²⁰ In Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas were sent to do missionary work in Cyprus and there met up with a proconsul named Sergius Paulus, “an intelligent man.” (Acts 13:7) In the middle of the 19th century, excavations in Cyprus uncovered an inscription dating from 55 C.E. that mentions this very man. Of this, archaeologist G. Ernest Wright says: “It is the one reference we have to this proconsul outside the Bible and it is interesting that Luke gives us correctly his name and title.”​¹⁸

21, 22. What religious practices of Bible record have been confirmed by archaeological discoveries?

²¹ When he was in Athens, Paul said he had observed an altar that was dedicated “To an Unknown God.” (Acts 17:23) Altars dedicated in Latin to anonymous gods have been discovered in parts of the territory of the Roman Empire. One was found in Pergamum with the inscription written in Greek, as would have been the case in Athens.

²² Later, while in Ephesus, Paul was violently opposed by silversmiths, whose income was derived from making shrines and images of the goddess Artemis. Ephesus was referred to as “the temple keeper of the great Artemis.” (Acts 19:35) In harmony with this, a number of terra-cotta and marble figurines of Artemis have been discovered at the site of ancient Ephesus. During the last century, the remains of the huge temple itself were excavated.

The Ring of Truth

23, 24. (a) Where do we find the strongest proof of the truth of the writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures? (b) What quality inherent in the Bible record testifies to its truthfulness? Illustrate.

²³ Hence, history and archaeology illustrate, and to some extent confirm, the historical elements of the Greek Scriptures. But, again, the strongest proof of the truth of these writings is in the books themselves. When you read them, they do not sound like myths. They have the ring of truth.

²⁴ For one thing, they are very frank. Think of what is recorded about Peter. His embarrassing failure to walk on water is detailed. Then, Jesus says to this highly respected apostle: “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 14:28-31; 16:23) Moreover, after vigorously protesting that even if all the others abandoned Jesus, he would never do so, Peter fell asleep on his night watch and then denied his Lord three times.​—Matthew 26:31-35, 37-45, 73-75.

25. What weaknesses of the apostles do Bible writers frankly expose?

²⁵ But Peter is not the only one whose weaknesses are exposed. The frank record does not gloss over the apostles’ bickering about who was the greatest among them. (Matthew 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24) Nor does it omit telling us that the mother of the apostles James and John asked Jesus to give her sons the most favored positions in his Kingdom. (Matthew 20:20-23) The “sharp burst of anger” between Barnabas and Paul is also faithfully documented.​—Acts 15:36-39.

26. What detail about Jesus’ resurrection would have been included only if it was true?

²⁶ Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the book of Luke tells us that it was “the women, who had come with him out of Galilee,” who first learned about Jesus’ resurrection. This is a most unusual detail in the male-dominated society of the first century. Indeed, according to the record, what the women were saying “appeared as nonsense” to the apostles. (Luke 23:55–24:11) If the history in the Greek Scriptures is not true, it must have been invented. But why would anyone invent a story portraying such respected figures in such an unflattering light? These details would have been included only if they were true.

Jesus​—A Real Person

27. How does one historian testify to the historical existence of Jesus?

²⁷ Many have viewed Jesus as he is described in the Bible as an idealized fiction. But historian Michael Grant notes: “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”​¹⁹

28, 29. Why is it significant that the four Gospels present a unified picture of Jesus’ personality?

²⁸ Not only Jesus’ existence but also his personality comes through in the Bible with a decided ring of truth. It is not easy to invent an unusual character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout a whole book. It is nearly impossible for four different writers to write about the same character and consistently paint the same picture of him if that character never really existed. The fact that the Jesus described in all four Gospels is obviously the same person is persuasive evidence of the Gospels’ truthfulness.

²⁹ Michael Grant quotes a very appropriate question: “How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?”​²⁰ The only answer is that such a man really existed and acted in the way the Bible says.

Why They Do Not Believe

30, 31. Why do many not accept the Christian Greek Scriptures as historically accurate despite all the evidence?

³⁰ Since there is compelling evidence for saying that the Greek Scriptures are true history, why do some say they are not? Why is it that many, while accepting parts of them as genuine, nevertheless refuse to accept everything they contain? It is mainly because the Bible records things that modern intellectuals do not want to believe. It tells, for example, that Jesus both fulfilled and uttered prophecies. It also tells that he performed miracles and that after his death he was resurrected.

³¹ In this skeptical 20th century, such things are incredible. Regarding miracles, Professor Ezra P. Gould notes: “There is one reservation which some of the critics feel themselves justified in making . . . that miracles do not happen.”²¹ Some accept that Jesus may have effected healings, but only of the psychosomatic, ‘mind over matter,’ type. As for the other miracles, most explain them away either as inventions or as real events that were distorted in the telling.

32, 33. How have some tried to explain away Jesus’ miracle of feeding the large crowd, but why is this illogical?

³² As an example of this, consider the occasion when Jesus fed a crowd of more than 5,000 with just a few loaves and two fishes. (Matthew 14:14-22) Nineteenth-century scholar Heinrich Paulus suggested that what really happened was this: Jesus and his apostles found themselves attended by a large multitude that were getting hungry. So he decided to set a good example for the rich among them. He took what little food he and his apostles had and shared it with the multitude. Soon, others who had brought food followed his example and shared theirs. Finally, the whole multitude was fed.​²²

³³ If this is what really happened, though, it was a remarkable proof of the power of good example. Why would such an interesting and meaningful story be distorted to make it sound like a supernatural miracle? Indeed, all such efforts to explain away the miracles as other than miraculous pose more problems than they solve. And they are all based on a false premise. They start by assuming that miracles are impossible. But why should that be the case?

34. If the Bible really does contain accurate prophecy and accounts of genuine miracles, what does this prove?

³⁴ According to the most reasonable standards, both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures are genuine history, yet they both contain examples of prophecy and miracles. (Compare 2 Kings 4:42-44.) What, then, if the prophecies are genuine? And what if miracles actually did occur? Then God was indeed behind the writing of the Bible, and it really is his word, not man’s. In a future chapter, we will discuss the question of prophecy, but first let us consider miracles. Is it reasonable in this 20th century to believe that in earlier centuries miracles did happen?

[Blurb on page 66]

Why would the Bible report that Jesus’ resurrection was first discovered by women if this did not really happen?

[Box on page 56]

Modern Criticism Found Wanting

As an example of the uncertain nature of modern Bible criticism, consider these remarks by Raymond E. Brown about the Gospel of John: “At the end of the last century and in the early years of this century, scholarship went through a period of extreme skepticism about this Gospel. John was dated very late, even to the second half of the 2nd century. As a product of the Hellenistic world, it was thought to be totally devoid of historical value and to have little relation to the Palestine of Jesus of Nazareth . . .

“There is not one such position that has not been affected by a series of unexpected archaeological, documentary, and textual discoveries. These discoveries have led us to challenge intelligently the critical views that had almost become orthodox and to recognize how fragile was the base which supported the highly skeptical analysis of John. . . .

“The dating of the Gospel has been moved back to the end of the 1st century or even earlier. . . . Perhaps strangest of all, some scholars are even daring to suggest once more that John the son of Zebedee may have had something to do with the Gospel”!​³

Why should it seem strange to believe that John wrote the book traditionally credited to him? Only because it does not fit in with the critics’ preconceived ideas.

[Box on page 70]

Just Another Attack on the Bible

Timothy P. Weber writes: “The findings of higher criticism forced many lay people to doubt their ability to understand anything [in the Bible]. . . . A. T. Pierson expressed the frustration of many evangelicals when he stated that ‘like Romanism, [higher criticism] practically removes the Word of God from the common people by assuming that only scholars can interpret it; while Rome puts a priest between a man and the Word, criticism puts an educated expositor between the believer and his Bible.’”​²³ Thus, modern higher criticism is exposed as just another attack on the Bible.

[Picture on page 62]

This altar in Pergamum was apparently dedicated “to unknown gods”

[Picture on page 63]

Ruins of the once magnificent temple of Artemis of which the Ephesians were so proud

[Picture on page 64]

The Bible honestly reports that Peter denied knowing Jesus

[Picture on page 67]

The Bible candidly records the “sharp burst of anger” between Paul and Barnabas

[Picture on page 68]

The consistency of the portrayal of Jesus in the four Gospels is a strong proof of their genuineness

[Picture on page 69]

Most modern critics take it for granted that miracles do not happen

Chapter 6

The Miracles​—Did They Really Happen?

One day in 31 C.E., Jesus and his disciples were traveling to Nain, a city in northern Palestine. As they got close to the gate of the city, they met up with a funeral procession. The deceased was a young man. His mother was a widow, and he had been her only son, so now she was all alone. According to the record, Jesus “was moved with pity for her, and he said to her: ‘Stop weeping.’ With that he approached and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still, and he said: ‘Young man, I say to you, Get up!’ And the dead man sat up and started to speak.”​—Luke 7:11-15.

1. (Include introduction.) (a) What miracle did Jesus perform near the city of Nain? (b) How important are miracles in the Bible, yet do all people believe that they really happened?

IT IS a heartwarming story, but is it true? Many find it hard to believe that such things ever really happened. Nevertheless, miracles are an integral part of the Bible record. Belief in the Bible means believing that miracles occurred. In fact, the whole pattern of Bible truth depends on one very important miracle: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why Some Do Not Believe

2, 3. What is one line of reasoning that the Scottish philosopher David Hume used in an effort to prove that miracles do not happen?

² Do you believe in miracles? Or do you feel that in this scientific age, it is illogical to believe in miracles​—that is, in extraordinary events that give evidence of superhuman intervention? If you do not believe, you are not the first. Two centuries ago, the Scottish philosopher David Hume had the same problem. It may be that your reasons for disbelief are similar to his.

³ Hume’s objections to the idea of miracles included three outstanding points.​¹ First, he writes: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” Man has relied from time immemorial on the laws of nature. He has known that an object will fall if it is dropped, that the sun will rise each morning and set each night, and so forth. Instinctively, he knows that events will always follow such familiar patterns. Nothing will ever happen that is out of harmony with natural laws. This ‘proof,’ Hume felt, “is as entire as any argument from experience” against the possibility of miracles.

4, 5. What are two other reasons put forward by David Hume to disclaim the possibility of miracles?

⁴ A second argument he presented was that people are easily fooled. Some want to believe in marvels and miracles, especially when it has to do with religion, and many so-called miracles have turned out to be fakes. A third argument was that miracles are usually reported in times of ignorance. The more educated people become, the fewer miracles are reported. As Hume expressed it, “Such prodigious events never happen in our days.” Thus, he felt it proved that they never did happen.

⁵ To this day, most arguments against miracles follow these general principles, so let us consider Hume’s objections, one by one.

Against the Laws of Nature?

6. Why is it illogical to object to the idea of miracles on the ground that they are ‘violations of the laws of nature’?

⁶ What about the objection that miracles are ‘violations of the laws of nature’ and therefore cannot be true? On the surface, this might seem persuasive; but analyze what is really being said. Usually, a miracle can be defined as something that occurs outside the normal laws of nature.a It is an occurrence so unexpected that onlookers are convinced they have witnessed superhuman intervention. Hence, what the objection really means is: ‘Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!’ Why not consider the evidence before jumping to such a conclusion?

7, 8. (a) With respect to the laws of nature as we know them, in what ways have scientists become more broad-minded in their view of what is and is not possible? (b) If we believe in God, what should we also believe as to his capacity to do unusual things?

⁷ The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe.​² They theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still.​³ Scientists have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!​⁴

⁸ Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down.”​⁵ So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual​—miraculous—​events to take place when it befits his purpose.​—Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15.

What About the Fakes?

9. Is it true that some miracles are fakes? Explain your answer.

⁹ No reasonable person would deny that there are fake miracles. For example, some claim the power to heal the sick by miraculous faith healing. A medical doctor, William A. Nolan, made it his special project to investigate such healings. He followed up on numerous claimed cures among both evangelical faith healers in the United States and so-called psychic surgeons in Asia. The result? All he found were examples of disappointment and fraud.​⁶

10. Do you feel that the fact that some miracles have been demonstrated to be fake proves that all miracles are fraudulent?

¹⁰ Do such frauds mean that genuine miracles never happened? Not necessarily. Sometimes we hear of forged bank notes being put into circulation, but that does not mean that all money is forged. Some sick people put a lot of faith in quacks, fraudulent doctors, and give a lot of money to them. But that does not mean that all doctors are fraudulent. Some artists have been skilled at forging “old master” paintings. But that does not mean that all paintings are fakes. Neither does the fact that some claimed miracles are clearly fakes mean that genuine miracles can never happen.

‘Miracles Do Not Happen Now’

11. What was David Hume’s third objection to the idea of miracles?

¹¹ The third objection was summed up in the expression: “Such prodigious events never happen in our days.” Hume had never seen a miracle, so he refused to believe that miracles could happen. This kind of reasoning, however, is inconsistent. Any thinking person has to admit that, before the days of the Scottish philosopher, “prodigious events” happened that were not repeated during his lifetime. What events?

12. What wonderful events happened in the past that cannot be explained by the laws of nature that operate today?

¹² For one thing, life began on earth. Then, certain forms of life were endowed with consciousness. Eventually, man appeared, endowed with wisdom, imagination, the capacity to love, and the faculty of conscience. No scientist can explain on the basis of the laws of nature that operate today how such extraordinary things happened. Yet we have living evidence that they did happen.

13, 14. What things are commonplace today that would have seemed miraculous to David Hume?

¹³ And what about “prodigious events” that have happened since David Hume’s day? Suppose we were able to travel back in time and tell him about today’s world. Imagine trying to explain that a businessman in Hamburg can speak to someone thousands of miles away in Tokyo without even raising his voice; that a soccer match in Spain can be seen all around the earth even as it is being played; that vessels much larger than the ocean-going ships of Hume’s day can rise from the surface of the earth and carry 500 people through the air for thousands of miles in a matter of hours. Can you imagine his response? ‘Impossible! Such prodigious events never happen in our days!’

¹⁴ Yet such ‘prodigies’ do happen in our days. Why? Because man, using scientific principles of which Hume had no concept, has learned to construct telephones, television sets, and airplanes. Is it, then, so difficult to believe that on occasion in the past God could have, in ways that we still do not understand, accomplished things that to us are miraculous?

How Can We Know?

15, 16. If miracles really did happen, what is the only way we could know about them? Illustrate your answer.

¹⁵ Of course, saying that miracles could have happened does not mean that they did. How can we know, in this 20th century, whether back in Bible times God worked genuine miracles through his servants on earth or not? What kind of evidence would you expect for such things? Imagine a primitive tribesman who has been taken from his jungle home to visit a big city. When he returns, how can he describe to his people the wonders of civilization? He cannot explain how an automobile works or why music comes out of a portable radio. He cannot build a computer to prove that such a thing exists. All he can do is tell what he has seen.

¹⁶ We are in the same situation as that man’s fellow tribesmen. If God really has worked miracles, the only way we can learn about them is from eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses cannot explain how the miracles happened, nor can they duplicate them. They can only tell us what they saw. Obviously, eyewitnesses can be duped. They can also easily exaggerate and misinform. If, then, we are to believe their testimony, we need to know that these eyewitnesses are truthful, are of high quality, and have proved that they have good motives.

The Best-Attested Miracle

17. (a) What is the best-attested miracle in the Bible? (b) What were the circumstances that led up to Jesus’ death?

¹⁷ The best-attested miracle in the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so why not use this as a test case, so to speak. First, consider the reported facts: Jesus was arrested on the evening of Nisan 14​—which happened to be a Thursday night in our modern way of reckoning the week.b He appeared before the leaders of the Jews who accused him of blasphemy and decided he had to die. The Jewish leaders led Jesus before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who succumbed to their pressure and handed him over for execution. On Friday afternoon​—still Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar​—he was nailed to a torture stake and in a few hours was dead.​—Mark 14:43-65; 15:1-39.

18. According to the Bible, how did the report of Jesus’ resurrection begin to circulate?

¹⁸ After a Roman soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear to make sure he was really dead, Jesus’ body was buried in a new tomb. The following day, Nisan 15 (Friday/​Saturday), was a sabbath. But on the morning of Nisan 16​—Sunday morning—​some disciples went to the tomb and found it empty. Soon, stories began to circulate that Jesus had been seen alive. The initial reaction to these stories was exactly what it would be today​—disbelief. Even the apostles refused to believe. But when they themselves saw the living Jesus, they had no choice but to accept that he had indeed been raised from the dead.​—John 19:31–20:29; Luke 24:11.

The Empty Tomb

19-21. (a) According to Justin Martyr, how did the Jews counter the preaching by Christians about Jesus’ resurrection? (b) What can we be sure was true about Jesus’ tomb on Nisan 16?

¹⁹ Had Jesus been resurrected, or is all this just a fabrication? One thing that people back then would likely have asked is: Is Jesus’ body still in his tomb? Jesus’ followers would have faced a huge obstacle if their opponents could have pointed to his actual corpse still in its burial place as evidence that he had not been resurrected. There is, however, no record that they ever did this. Rather, according to the Bible, they gave money to the soldiers assigned to guard the tomb and told them: “Say, ‘His disciples came in the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’” (Matthew 28:11-13) We also have evidence outside the Bible that the Jewish leaders acted in this way.

²⁰ About a century after Jesus’ death, Justin Martyr wrote a work called Dialogue With Trypho. In this, he said: “You [the Jews] have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid.”​⁷

²¹ Now, Trypho was a Jew, and the Dialogue With Trypho was written to defend Christianity against Judaism. Hence, it is unlikely that Justin Martyr would have said what he did​—that the Jews accused the Christians of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb—​if the Jews had not made such a charge. Otherwise, he would have left himself open to an easily verifiable charge of lying. Justin Martyr would have said this only if the Jews really had sent out such messengers. And they would have done so only if the tomb really was empty on Nisan 16, 33 C.E. and if they could not point to Jesus’ body in the tomb as evidence that he had not been resurrected. So since the tomb was empty, what had happened? Did the disciples steal the body? Or was it removed miraculously as evidence that Jesus had really been resurrected?

The Conclusion of Luke the Physician

22, 23. Who was one educated man of the first century who looked into the resurrection of Jesus, and what sources of information were available to him?

²² One highly educated man of the first century who carefully considered the evidence was Luke, a physician. (Colossians 4:14) Luke wrote two books that are now a part of the Bible: one was a Gospel, or history of Jesus’ ministry, and the other, called the Acts of Apostles, was a history of the spread of Christianity in the years following Jesus’ death.

²³ In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke refers to much evidence that was available to him but that is no longer available to us. He speaks of the written documents about Jesus’ life that he consulted. He also notes that he spoke with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Then, he says: “I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.” (Luke 1:1-3) Evidently, Luke’s research was thorough. Was he a good historian?

24, 25. How do many view Luke’s qualifications as a historian?

²⁴ Many have attested that he was. Back in 1913, Sir William Ramsay in a lecture commented on the historicity of the works of Luke. His conclusion? “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense.”​⁸ More recent researchers have come to the same conclusion. The Living Word Commentary, when introducing its volumes on Luke, says: “Luke was both a historian (and an accurate one) and a theologian.”

²⁵ Dr. David Gooding, a former professor of Old Testament Greek in Northern Ireland, declares that Luke was “an ancient historian in the tradition of the Old Testament historians and in the tradition of Thucydides [one of the highest-rated historians of the ancient world]. Like them he will have taken great pains in investigating his sources, in selecting his material, and in disposing that material. . . . Thucydides combined this method with a passion for historical accuracy: there is no reason for thinking that Luke did less.”​⁹

26. (a) What was Luke’s conclusion regarding Jesus’ resurrection? (b) What may have strengthened him in this conclusion?

²⁶ What was the conclusion of this highly qualified man about why Jesus’ tomb was empty on Nisan 16? Both in his Gospel and in the book of Acts, Luke reports as a fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. (Luke 24:1-52; Acts 1:3) He had no doubt at all about it. Perhaps his belief in the miracle of the resurrection was strengthened by his own experiences. While he was not apparently an eyewitness of the resurrection, he does report witnessing miracles that were performed by the apostle Paul.​—Acts 14:8-10; 20:7-12; 28:8, 9.

They Saw the Resurrected Jesus

27. Who are some who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus?

²⁷ Two of the Gospels are traditionally ascribed to men who knew Jesus, saw him die, and claimed to have actually seen him after his resurrection. These are the apostle Matthew, the former tax collector, and John, Jesus’ beloved apostle. Another Bible writer, the apostle Paul, also claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Paul, in addition, lists by name others who saw Jesus alive after his death, and he says that at one time Jesus appeared to “upward of five hundred brothers.”​—1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

28. What effect did the resurrection of Jesus have on Peter?

²⁸ One whom Paul mentions as an eyewitness is James, Jesus’ fleshly half brother, who must have known Jesus since childhood. Another is the apostle Peter; the historian Luke reports that he gave a fearless witness about Jesus’ resurrection just a few weeks after Jesus’ death. (Acts 2:23, 24) Two letters in the Bible are traditionally ascribed to Peter, and in the first of these Peter shows that his belief in the resurrection of Jesus was still a powerful motivation even many years after the event. He wrote: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for according to his great mercy he gave us a new birth to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”​—1 Peter 1:3.

29. Although we cannot speak with eyewitnesses of the resurrection, what impressive evidence is nevertheless available to us?

²⁹ Hence, just as Luke could speak with people who claimed to have seen and to have spoken with Jesus after his death, we can read the words that some of these wrote. And we can judge for ourselves whether those people were deceived, whether they were trying to deceive us, or whether they really did see the resurrected Christ. Frankly, there is no way that they could have been deceived. A number of them were Jesus’ intimate friends up until his death. Some of them witnessed his agony on the torture stake. They saw the blood and water flow out from the spear wound inflicted by the soldier. The soldier knew, and they knew, that Jesus was indisputably dead. Later, they say, they saw Jesus alive and actually spoke with him. No, they could not have been deceived. Were they, then, trying to deceive us in saying that Jesus had been resurrected?​—John 19:32-35; 21:4, 15-24.

30. Why is it impossible that the early eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection were lying?

³⁰ To answer this, we have merely to ask ourselves: Did they themselves believe what they were saying? Yes, without any doubt. To the Christians, including those who claimed to be eyewitnesses, the resurrection of Jesus was the whole basis of their belief. The apostle Paul said: “If Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain . . . If Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless.” (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17) Does that sound like the words of a man who is lying when he says he has seen the resurrected Christ?

31, 32. What sacrifices were made by early Christians, and why is this strong evidence that these Christians were telling the truth when they said that Jesus had been resurrected?

³¹ Consider what it meant to be a Christian in those days. There was no gain in prestige, power, or wealth. Quite the contrary. Many of the early Christians ‘joyfully took the plundering of their belongings’ for the sake of their faith. (Hebrews 10:34) Christianity called for a life of sacrifice and persecution that in many cases ended in martyrdom by a shameful, painful death.

³² Some Christians came from prosperous families, like the apostle John whose father evidently had a flourishing fishing business in Galilee. Many had good prospects, such as Paul who, when he accepted Christianity, had been a student of the famous rabbi Gamaliel and was beginning to distinguish himself in the eyes of the Jewish rulers. (Acts 9:1, 2; 22:3; Galatians 1:14) Yet, all turned their backs on what this world offered in order to spread a message based on the fact that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead. (Colossians 1:23, 28) Why would they make such sacrifices to suffer for a cause they knew was based on a lie? The answer is, they would not. They were willing to suffer and die for a cause they knew to be founded on truth.

Miracles Really Happen

33, 34. Since the resurrection really happened, what can we say about the other miracles of the Bible?

³³ Indeed, the testimonial evidence is absolutely convincing. Jesus really was raised from the dead on Nisan 16, 33 C.E. And since that resurrection happened, all the other miracles of the Bible are possible​—miracles for which we also have solid, eyewitness testimony. The same Power who raised Jesus from the dead also enabled Jesus to raise the son of the widow of Nain. He also empowered Jesus to perform the lesser​—but still wonderful—​miracles of healing. He was behind the miraculous feeding of the multitude, and He also enabled Jesus to walk on water.​—Luke 7:11-15; Matthew 11:4-6; 14:14-21, 23-31.

³⁴ Thus, the fact that the Bible tells of miracles is no reason to doubt its truthfulness. Rather, the fact that miracles did happen in Bible times is a powerful proof that the Bible really is the Word of God. But there is another accusation made against the Bible. Many say that it contradicts itself and therefore cannot be God’s Word. Is this true?

[Footnotes]

[Blurb on page 81]

Christianity’s enemies said that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. If this were the case, why would Christians have been willing to die for a faith based on his resurrection?

[Box on page 85]

Why No Miracles Today?

Sometimes the question is raised: ‘Why are there no miracles of the Bible kind today?’ The answer is that miracles served their purpose back then, but today God expects us to live by faith.​—Habakkuk 2:2-4; Hebrews 10:37-39.

In the days of Moses, miracles occurred to establish Moses’ credentials. They showed that Jehovah was using him and also that the Law covenant was truly of divine origin and that the Israelites were henceforth God’s chosen people.​—Exodus 4:1-9, 30, 31; Deuteronomy 4:33, 34.

In the first century, miracles helped to establish the credentials of Jesus and, after him, of the young Christian congregation. They helped to demonstrate that Jesus was the promised Messiah, that after his death fleshly Israel was replaced as God’s special people by the Christian congregation, and thus that the Law of Moses was no longer binding.​—Acts 19:11-20; Hebrews 2:3, 4.

After the days of the apostles, the time for miracles was past. The apostle Paul explained: “Whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with.”​—1 Corinthians 13:8-10.

Today, we have the complete Bible, which includes all the revelations and counsel of God. We have the fulfillment of prophecy, and we have an advanced understanding of God’s purposes. Hence, there is no more need for miracles. Nevertheless, the same spirit of God that made the miracles possible still exists and produces results that give equally strong evidence of divine power. We shall see more of this in a future chapter.

[Picture on page 75]

Many view the reliability of the laws of nature, such as the fact that the sun rises every morning, as proof that miracles cannot happen

[Picture on page 77]

The creation of the earth as a home for living things was a ‘prodigious event’ that was not repeated

[Pictures on page 78]

How would you explain the marvels of modern science to someone living 200 years ago?

Chapter 7

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

A charge often made against the Bible is that it contradicts itself. Usually, people who make this charge have not personally read the Bible; they are merely repeating what they have heard. Some, though, have found what seem to be genuine contradictions and are troubled by them.

1, 2. (Include introduction.) (a) What charge is often made against the Bible? (b) In comparing different Bible passages, what should we remember? (c) What are some reasons why there is sometimes a difference in the way two Bible writers report the same event?

IF IT really is the Word of God, the Bible should be harmonious, not contradictory. Why, then, do some passages seem to contradict others? To answer, we need to remember that, while the Bible is the Word of God, it was written down by a number of men over a period of several centuries. These writers had different backgrounds, writing styles, and gifts, and all these differences are reflected in the writing.

² Moreover, if two or more writers discuss the same event, one might include details that another omits. Additionally, different writers present the subject matter in different ways. One might write it down chronologically, while another might follow a different arrangement. In this chapter, we will present some alleged contradictions in the Bible and consider how they can be reconciled, taking the above considerations into account.

Independent Witnesses

3, 4. Regarding the army officer whose manservant was sick, what apparent discrepancy exists between Matthew’s account and that of Luke, and how can these accounts be reconciled?

³ Some “contradictions” arise when we have two or more accounts of the same incident. For example, at Matthew 8:5 we read that when Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?

⁴ The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece.

5. Why does the Bible say that Solomon built the temple, when the actual work was clearly done by others?

⁵ To illustrate this, at 2 Chronicles 3:1, we read: “Finally Solomon started to build the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem.” Later, we read: “Thus Solomon finished the house of Jehovah.” (2 Chronicles 7:11) Did Solomon personally build the temple from start to finish? Of course not. The actual building work was done by a multitude of craftsmen and laborers. But Solomon was the organizer of the work, the one responsible. Hence, the Bible says that he built the house. In the same way, Matthew’s Gospel tells us that the military commander approached Jesus. But Luke gives the added detail that he approached him through the Jewish elders.

6, 7. How can we reconcile the two different Gospel accounts of the request of the sons of Zebedee?

⁶ Here is a similar example. At Matthew 20:20, 21, we read: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee approached [Jesus] with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.” What she asked was that her sons should have the most favored position when Jesus came into his Kingdom. In Mark’s account of this same event, we read: “James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, stepped up to [Jesus] and said to him: ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.’” (Mark 10:35-37) Was it the two sons of Zebedee, or was it their mother, who made the request of Jesus?

⁷ Clearly, it was the two sons of Zebedee who made the request, as Mark states. But they made it through their mother. She was their spokesperson. This is supported by Matthew’s report that when the other apostles heard what the mother of the sons of Zebedee had done, they became indignant, not at the mother, but “at the two brothers.”​—Matthew 20:24.

8. How is it possible for two different accounts of the same event to differ from each other and yet both be the truth?

⁸ Have you ever heard two people describe an event that they both witnessed? If so, did you notice that each person emphasized details that impressed him? One may have left out things that the other included. Both, however, were telling the truth. It is the same with the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, as well as with other historical events reported by more than one Bible writer. Each writer wrote accurate information even when one retained details that another omitted. By considering all the accounts, a fuller understanding of what happened can be gained. Such variations prove that the Bible accounts are independent. And their essential harmony proves that they are true.

Read the Context

9, 10. In what way does the context help us to see where Cain got his wife?

⁹ Often, apparent inconsistencies can be resolved if we just look at the context. Consider, for example, the often-raised problem about Cain’s wife. At Genesis 4:1, 2 we read: “In time [Eve] gave birth to Cain and said: ‘I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.’ Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel.” As is well known, Cain killed Abel; but after that, we read that Cain had a wife and children. (Genesis 4:17) If Adam and Eve had only two sons, where did Cain find his wife?

¹⁰ The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the following verse, we read: “He became father to sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4) So Cain could have married one of his sisters or even one of his nieces. At that early stage of human history, when mankind was so close to perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the risks for the children of the union that it would today.

11. What alleged disagreement between James and the apostle Paul do some point to?

¹¹ Our considering the context also helps us to understand what some have claimed is a disagreement between the apostle Paul and James. At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled?

12, 13. How do the words of James complement rather than contradict those of the apostle Paul?

¹² Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous​—and thus deserve salvation—​by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.​—Romans 5:18.

¹³ James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.

14. In what passages does Paul show that he is in full harmony with the principle that a living faith must be demonstrated by works?

¹⁴ The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”​—sharing our faith with others—​is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.​—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.

Different Viewpoints

15, 16. How could both Moses and Joshua be correct when one said that east of the Jordan was “this side” of the river while the other said it was “the other side”?

¹⁵ Sometimes the Bible writers wrote about the same event from different viewpoints, or they presented their accounts in different ways. When these differences are taken into consideration, further apparent contradictions are easy to resolve. An example of this is in Numbers 35:14, where Moses speaks of the territory east of the Jordan as “on this side of the Jordan.” Joshua, however, speaking of land to the east of the Jordan, called it “the other side of the Jordan.” (Joshua 22:4) Which is correct?

¹⁶ In fact, both are correct. According to the account in Numbers, the Israelites had not yet crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, so to them east of the Jordan was “this side.” But Joshua had already crossed the Jordan. He was now, physically, west of the river, in the land of Canaan. So east of the Jordan was, for him, “the other side.”

17. (a) What alleged inconsistency do some point to in the first two chapters of Genesis? (b) What is the basic reason for the supposed discrepancy?

¹⁷ Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1–2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.​—Genesis 2:5–4:26.

18. How can we reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the two creation accounts in the early chapters of Genesis?

¹⁸ The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive “days.” The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name “every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” Now, then, is the time to mention that “Jehovah God was forming from the ground” all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.​—Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26.

Read the Account Carefully

19. What apparent confusion exists in the Bible’s account of the conquest of Jerusalem?

¹⁹ Sometimes, all that is needed to resolve apparent contradictions is to read the account carefully and reason on the information provided. This is the case when we consider the conquest of Jerusalem by the Israelites. Jerusalem was listed as part of the inheritance of Benjamin, but we read that Benjamin’s tribe was unable to conquer it. (Joshua 18:28; Judges 1:21) We also read that Judah was unable to conquer Jerusalem​—as if it were part of that tribe’s inheritance. Eventually, Judah defeated Jerusalem, burning it with fire. (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:8) Hundreds of years later, however, David is also recorded as conquering Jerusalem.​—2 Samuel 5:5-9.

20, 21. By examining carefully all the relevant details, what emerges as the history of the Hebrew takeover of the city of Jerusalem?

²⁰ At first glance, all of this might appear confusing, but there are in reality no contradictions. In fact, the boundary between Benjamin’s inheritance and Judah’s ran along the Valley of Hinnom, right through the ancient city of Jerusalem. What later came to be called the City of David actually lay in the territory of Benjamin, just as Joshua 18:28 says. But it is likely that the Jebusite city of Jerusalem spilled across the Valley of Hinnom and thus overlapped into Judah’s territory, so that Judah, too, had to war against its Canaanite inhabitants.

²¹ Benjamin was unable to conquer the city. On one occasion, Judah did conquer Jerusalem and burn it. (Judges 1:8, 9) But Judah’s forces evidently moved on, and some of the original inhabitants regained possession of the city. Later, they formed a pocket of resistance that neither Judah nor Benjamin could remove. Thus, the Jebusites continued in Jerusalem until David conquered the city hundreds of years later.

22, 23. Who carried Jesus’ torture stake to the place of execution?

²² We meet up with a second example in the Gospels. Concerning Jesus’ being led out to his death, in John’s Gospel we read: “Bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out.” (John 19:17) However, in Luke we read: “Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cyrene, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus.” (Luke 23:26) Did Jesus carry the implement of his death, or did Simon carry it for him?

²³ To begin with, Jesus evidently carried his own torture stake, as John points out. But later, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke testify, Simon of Cyrene was impressed into service to carry it for him the rest of the way to the place of execution.

Proof of Independence

24. Why are we not surprised to find some apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, but what should we not conclude from this?

²⁴ True, there are some apparent inconsistencies in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile. But we should not assume that they are definite contradictions. Often it is merely a case of lack of complete information. The Bible provides enough knowledge to fill our spiritual need. But if it were to give us every detail about every event mentioned, it would be a huge, unwieldy library, rather than the handy, easy-to-carry volume that we have today.

25. What does John say about the record of Jesus’ ministry, and how does this help us to understand why the Bible does not give us every detail about every event?

²⁵ Speaking of Jesus’ ministry, the apostle John wrote with justifiable exaggeration: “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.” (John 21:25) It would be even more of an impossibility to record all the details of the long history of God’s people from the patriarchs to the first-century Christian congregation!

26. The Bible contains enough information for us to be sure of what vital fact?

²⁶ Actually, the Bible is a miracle of condensation. It contains enough information to enable us to recognize it as more than merely a human work. Any variations it contains prove that the writers were truly independent witnesses. On the other hand, the outstanding unity of the Bible​—which we will discuss in more detail in a future chapter—​demonstrates without any doubt its divine origin. It is the word of God, not of man.

[Blurb on page 89]

Apparent discrepancies in the Bible prove that the writers were truly independent witnesses

[Blurb on page 91]

Consideration of the context often helps to solve alleged contradictions

[Box on page 93]

“Discrepancies” Do Not Have to Be Contradictions

Kenneth S. Kantzer, a theologian, once illustrated how two reports of the same event can seem contradictory and yet both be true. He wrote: “Some time ago the mother of a dear friend of ours was killed. We first learned of her death through a trusted mutual friend who reported that our friend’s mother had been standing on the street corner waiting for a bus, had been hit by another bus passing by, was fatally injured, and died a few minutes later.”

Soon after, he heard a very different report. He says: “We learned from the grandson of the dead woman that she had been involved in a collision, was thrown from the car in which she was riding, and was killed instantly. The boy was quite certain of his facts.

“Much later . . . we probed for a harmonization. We learned that the grandmother had been waiting for a bus, was hit by another bus, and was critically injured. She had been picked up by a passing car and dashed to the hospital, but in the haste, the car in which she was being transported to the hospital collided with another car. She was thrown from the car and died instantly.”

Yes, two accounts of the same event may both be true even though they seem to disagree with each other. This is sometimes the case with the Bible. Independent witnesses may describe different details about the same event. Instead of being contradictory, however, what they write is complementary, and if we take all accounts into consideration, we get a better understanding of what happened.