Some of the most overlooked pieces of evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is the internal evidence.
In contrast to external evidence, which looks at how well the New Testament conforms with outside facts
these arguments looks at clues within the New Testament that speak to its reliability.
In other words, if the New Testament is reliable and trustworthy then it should contain a large amount of internal clues that confirm this.
We've already looked at two sections of internal evidence.
In part 3, we looked at how the New Testament preserves a controlled oral tradition that would have been unlikely to have been fabricated.
And in Part 4 we looked at the internal evidence which suggests an early dating for many of the New Testament books,
and puts them very close to the ministry of Jesus.
So in this video we'll look at 3 other pieces of internal evidence,
such as: 1. Excessive Non-theological Verbiage.
2. Criteria of Embarrassment
3. Undesigned Coincidences.
So diving right in, we'll start with the first one of excessive non-theological verbiage.
This piece of evidence speaks to the unlikeliness the New Testament was made up as later myths
or was later intentionally corrupted by scribes.
For example, throughout Paul's epistles there are verses which have no theological or spiritual significance,
such as Paul mentioning he will be visiting the Corinthian church, but he'll stay in Ephesus for a time [1 Cor 16:5-6]
Or that Paul wasted time to instruct Timothy to bring him his cloak and his books.
In the Gospel as well, there are entire passages with no theological teaching,
such as a group of women named in Luke 8 that followed Jesus,
or mentioning that Simon [the Cyrene] was father of Alexander and Rufus.
These passages would be unlikely to be made up at a later date if you are just making up stories and theological teachings,
because they would only matter to a specific people very early on and carry no lasting theological significance for later generations.
Yet the epistles are filled with verses like this.
What would the reasons be to include verses like this if the New Testament was made up by later generations to teach theology through myths?
including them was an unnecessary waste of your precious space
Unless of course, the New Testament is not a myth and Paul was actually writing to the Corinthian church
and these unnecessary verses were included because they mattered to the people Paul was writing directly to.
Second, the fact that verses like these are included speaks to the integrity of later scribes.
If a scribe was only concerned with preserving the sections of scripture that mattered, we would expect passages like this to have been removed.
Now some may object that it would not have been too hard to simply copy these sections as well.
But we need to remember to not read scripture with a modern lens.
Papyrus and ink 2000 years ago was not cheap, like it would be today.
To copy and preserve a document was an expensive endeavor.
A papyrus the size of Mark's Gospel or 1 Corinthians alone cost, roughly 2 denarii,
and a days wage was 1 denarii a day.
So to obtain the money for just 1 papyrus you would need to work at least 2 full days and possibly more.
Something for the size of Luke or Matthew would cost about 5 denarii.
Then that doesn't include ink and the time it takes to write.
If you do not know how to write you would also need to hire a scribe on top of that.
So this was not an easy process like it is today,
this was a full blown project that would cost a lot of money and time.
Yet despite this copyists kept this unnecessary excessive language that did not apply to their generation,
when it would have been easier, cheaper, and less time consuming to simply cut out these parts.
Plus, considering the amount of room a papyrus has, the unnecessary passages could be removed and replaced with more important doctrines scribes thought should have been originally added.
This would have been the perfect place to add and make up possible saying of Jesus to deal with later issues the church struggled with,
like if Christians needed to be circumcised
or what was the place of speaking in tongues
or when to celebrate easter.
But instead of doing this for their convenience and ease, we find this unnecessary language that would only have mattered to the original readers.
And this later issues the church struggled with were not resolved by making up "Jesus sayings", when it would have been the easiest thing to do.
This shows Christians scribes were more concerned with preserving these documents at their own expense and effort, then only preserving what was theologically important to them and using the extra space to insert convenient lies.
So the next section is look at passages in the New Testament that fit the criteria of embarrassment.
Scholars note that if a passage is embarrassing to the author who wrote it, it is likely to be true,
since the author would have preferred the event never had happened, yet feel they need to report it anyway.
And in fact, when we look at the New Testament, we can point to dozens of examples.
Like how Acts and 1 Corinthians reports challenges the early church faced and wrestled with.
The fact that New testament writers mention these disputes testifies to the probability that they actually happened.
Now some disagree with this and claim that the existence of embarrassing passages doesn't make something true.
Well, obviously. No one claims that just because something is embarrassing for the original author it is automatically true.
The criteria of embarrassment adds evidence something is more likely true,
but of course if there is stronger evidence favoring its falsehood then the embarrassment factor is outweighed.
Yet that doesn't mean the criteria of embarrassment should be completely disagreed, as historians still consider it a valid tool to use in our cumulative investigation of history.
Sometimes embarrassing passages can be created for moral or theological reasons.
Like for example, In Romans 7 Paul speaks of his inability to do the good.
A skeptic can point out that even though this passage seems embarrassing it is used for theological teachings and has a purpose.
So it could have been invented for a specific purpose.
So what we need to ask is if there are sections of the New Testament that are embarrassing and have little to no theological significance.
And in fact we can point to many places,
like the example we just spoke about. If you are inventing theology like that Christians don't need to be circumcised it would be far easier to just invent a saying of Jesus on this,
instead of claiming the church split over the issue,
a council had to be called,
and they had to hack out their differences,
this is much more embarrassing than simply saying you were enlightened by the Holy Spirit on the issue.
The same can be applied to the issues the Corinthian church faced.
Also in the Gospels there doesn't seem to be a good reason to make that fact that Jesus was buried in the tomb of a Sanhedrin member.
For the early Church, the Sanhedrin was corrupt,
had unjustly crucified their messiah,
and was the enemy of the early church.
To admit they could not supply there own tomb for Jesus and had to use the tomb of the group who hated and persecuted them is an unlikely invention that doesn't have much to teach,
outside of the possibility the author are just reporting history as it happened.
The Gospels also give a prominent role to the woman followers of Jesus.
In the modern world such a thing would hardly be questioned,
but to ancient people women were considered untrustworthy [as authoritative witnesses].
The Talmud says, "Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)…" [Talmud, Rosh Hashana 1.8c]
Yet all four gospels report the women were the first to discover the empty tomb.
If this was an invention it would not have helped the early Christians theological in any way,
since the testimony of women was not trusted.
And Christian opponents like Celsus used this fact against them.
This embarrassing fact was not something you invented for any reason.
As NT Wright says, "As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never had had Mary Magdalene in this role.
To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot.
But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up." [There is a God. page 207]
In fact, there are several instances we can look at that fit the criteria of embarrassment.
The fact that the New Testament writers mentioned embarrassing facts supports the idea they are reporting history as it happened instead of making up stories to suit their needs.
So the next piece of evidence is one of the most overlooked, yet has recently been given a new resurgence from apologist and philosopher Tim McGrew.
Undesigned coincidences are the opposite of Supposed Bible Contradictions.
Skeptics try to make a big splash in claiming the Bible is full of contradictions, and in another series we have begin to address these one at a time.
But no one seems to realize the Bible is filled with undesigned coincidences,
which are claims or facts different accounts mention which overlap and confirm entirely other claims made independently
or they fill in gaps in different accounts left as a loose end by one author.
Now this sounds a bit abstract, but you'll see what I mean by looking at examples.
Look at Matthew 8. We are told Jesus healed Peter's mother.
Then we are told that evening they brought Jesus more people to be healed,
but the question is why did they wait until evening?
Why not rush on the opportunity?
Well, Mark reporting the same events yet ties up this loose end by telling us Jesus entered the house of Simon on the Sabbath.
So they would have to wait for evening, when the Sabbath ended.
A similar thing happens in Luke, who reports the disciples told no one what they saw after the Transfiguration
But why wouldn't they tell anyone?
Well, Mark supplies the reason is that Jesus instructed them not to
So these are good examples of how undesigned coincidences work.
In one account there is a loose end, that is tied up in another account,
which tells us the accounts fit together in reporting the same event.
Now skeptics might respond that Matthew and Luke were simply stealing their stories from Mark and forgot to include those details.
Well, that is possible. However, undersigned coincidences are not built on one or two examples,
but on a collection of places showing the Gospels confirm each other.
So more are needed to present an adequate case.
Another example can be seen in a detail Mark leaves out.
Mark 6 reports the feeding of the 5000 and it reads that "many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat."
So Jesus called his followers out to a desolate place and then Jesus commanded them to sit down on the green grass.
This is odd for two reasons, one being - Palestine doesn't get a lot of green grass
and it is not explained why it is so crowded that they need to retreat to a desolate place.
Well, luckily we are given the answer in John, because it records the feeding of the 5000 happened around passover,
which means it happened in spring during the growing season, which explains why the grass was green.
Plus since Passover brought thousands of pilgrims it explains why it was so crowded that Jesus and His followers had to retreat into the wilderness.
It doesn't seem likely John invented this to explain away Mark,
because John doesn't mention that is was Passover in order to explain why the grass was green or why it was over crowded.
In fact he leaves both these points out and only mentions it was Passover in passing.
So we have a instance of where John unintentionally explains Mark twice.
John 6:5 says that Jesus asked Philip, "where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
It is never explained why of all people, Jesus asked Philip.
If I was making this story up, the most likely disciple to pick would have been Judas, since he held the money.
However, if we begin to connect the dots, we'll see Luke unintentionally explains John.
Luke 9, tells us the feeding of the 5000 happened in Bethsaida,
which connects perfectly with John, because later on John tells us Philip was from Bethsaida,
but unlike Luke, John doesn't tell us this event happened in Bethsaida.
Only with the help of Luke is this loose end tied up in John as to why Jesus asked Philip of all disciples.
Another one related to this is that in Matthew, Jesus speaks a woe on the region of Bethsaida, and speaks of mighty works done in there.
However, Matthew never mentions any mighty works down in Bethsaida.
Only from Luke do we find out the feeding of the 5000 happened before the woes are given.
So Luke explains a passage in Matthew.
Luke also confirms something in Matthew 14:1-2.
We are told Herod was talking with his servants and worrying if Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead.
The question arises how did Matthew know what Herod was talking about in His palace?
Well, Luke, unintentionally gives us the answer.
In a totally different context, Luke tells us a followers of Jesus was "Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager."
Thus we have an answer as to how it was possible the Christians we able to get inside information on Herod.
In Mark 15, we are told the Jews are accusing Jesus of claiming he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,
but in none of the syncopic Gospels are we told as to where they got this claim from.
However John 2 in a totally different context we are told Jesus was speaking metaphorically about his body after cleansing the temple of raising it up after 3 days.
So we have an instance of John confirming Mark of where the Jews got their distorted accusation from.
Before this happened, Jesus is brought before Pilate.
The Jews say Jesus is claiming to be a King,
hich would be a crime under Roman law, since Caesar was king.
So Pilate asks Jesus "Are you the king of the Jews?"
And Jesus answered him "You have said so."
Then Pilate says to the crowds, "I found no guilt in this man."
This doesn't make sense.
Jesus admits to the charge and Pilate says He is not guilty?
So something is either wrong or missing.
Luckily in John we are given the context.
Pilate brings Jesus in and asks Him "Are you king of the Jews?", and Jesus replies "My Kingdom is not of this world,"
which is another way of saying His kingdom was of the spirit, which is not a challenge to Caesar physical kingdom.
This shows us nothing Luke says is incorrect, but John gives us the context for it to make sense.
But not only does John confirm Luke, but Luke also confirms John.
Because John doesn't give us the accusation from the Jews, which explains why Pilate would even ask Jesus if He was king of the Jews.
So both accounts confirm each other in an intricate way.
Luke gives us the accusation and John gives us the answer from Jesus as to why He is innocent.
Therefore, we can see the Gospels interlock and confirm each other nicely.
And there are even more examples McGrew gives us.
If these were all myths we would not find coincidences like these which explain away loose ends unintentionally,
nor would there even be a need to leave loose ends.
If you are writing fiction you're simply making up facts to suit your needs
and there is no need to leave loose ends like you are unless you are constrained by reality,
since everything is subject to your imagination.
But these undesigned coincidences support the idea the Gospel writers were reporting history and not making up myths, otherwise, they would not interlock.
It is important to note, I have only scratched the surface of internal evidence.
We haven't even looked at the criteria of dissimilarity
or the criterion of multiple forms,
among many other internal marks of authenticity.
I attached a paper below by Robert Stein which goes over many more marks of internal authenticity
for anyone who wants to see more data to confirm the internal evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.
All in all, there is a lot of internal evidence which speaks to the reliability of the New Testament,
and we have barely scratched the surface.
For more infomation >> City sets up camera system in Bosque to deter crime - Duration: 2:00. 
For more infomation >> Hẹn Yêu - Duy Zuno 「Lyrics Video」#VinhAcoustic - Duration: 14:43. 
For more infomation >> Lần Đầu ĐÁNH NHAU NGOÀI MƯA Như KIẾM HIỆP - BẢO REN - Duration: 11:41. 
For more infomation >> Tomb raider#EP.1 - น้องตู้มติดเกาะ - Duration: 27:27. 
For more infomation >> Bình luận LQM | TORO full tank cực bá trong liên quân mobile - Duration: 15:16. 
For more infomation >> ПИТОМЦЫ ЛОЛ 4 СЕРИЯ ДЕКОДЕР ДЛЯ СУМЕРКИ И РАССВЕТ СВОИМИ РУКАМИ LOL SURPRISE PETS DECODER DIY! - Duration: 7:39. 
For more infomation >> ЛОЛ 4 СЕРИЯ ДЕКОДЕР ПИТОМЦЫ! СОВА ДЛЯ СУМЕРКИ Мультик лол LOL SURPRISE PETS DECODER / TOYS AND DOLLS - Duration: 11:19. 
For more infomation >> Mike Huckabee on Ren Hen uproar, controversial tweet - Duration: 4:32. 
For more infomation >> Thử Thách 24 Giờ Lang Thang Không Về Nhà - Duration: 15:01. 
For more infomation >> Roseanne Barr breaks down during interview - Duration: 3:43. 
For more infomation >> #Roblox #Windows10 #Xbox #playstation #Android #IoS #Iphone #Multiplayer #Subs Games - Duration: 1:38:32. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét