Bible criticism and liberal theology are contemporary phenomena. However, critics have a naturalistic preconception that is not based on science and facts

    However, such statements are not new. They have been performed for almost two hundred years. It is interesting that at the same time as Darwin's theory of evolution and the Ice Age theory came into people's consciousness, criticism of the Bible simultaneously began to gain ground. Researchers began to appear who began to question the entries related to the life of Jesus and events in the Bible. They thought that if the Creation and the Flood are not true in the light of the previous theories, then what reason is there to believe in the information mentioned about Jesus. Thus, it is no coincidence that these three issues came up almost simultaneously.

    In any case, it is good for us to study this matter. The purpose is to help those who want to find out about the reliability of the Bible and how reasonable it is to trust the events mentioned in the Gospels. If you yourself are struggling with this matter, you should read the following lines. 

1. The Gospels at test

Preconceptions. In the foreword, it was mentioned how many researchers have questioned the historicity of the Bible. They may have considered the stories of the Bible as slowly born and colored religious descriptions.

    These statements of "higher criticism" are characterized usually one and the same feature in common: the researchers are already clear in advance about what can and cannot happen. Even before starting the research, their perception excludes supernatural material. It is not even given a chance, as the following quote shows:

These liberal theologians appearing in the media today do not even try to find out in the light of historical evidence whether the view of the supernatural Jesus contained in the Bible is correct or not. They start from the fact that it is wrong. That's why they only try to find out how the (in their opinion) mythical image of Jesus contained in the Bible was created. They have to somehow explain how an ordinary man was transformed in the minds of his followers into the Son of God who is said to have claimed to be God, performed miracles and even risen from the dead.

    The starting point of these researchers is that what the Gospels tell cannot be true! They assume that such things as the virgin birth, miraculous healings and resurrection cannot happen, and therefore they are forced to explain why the early followers of Jesus thought such things happened. The simple and reasonable explanation that the opinion of the followers of Jesus was due to the fact that such a thing had actually happened is not considered a valid "explanation". (1)

Thus, when it comes to Jesus, some researchers have presented with "certainty" and omniscience that the special events mentioned in his life such as the virgin birth, the resurrection or other similar things cannot have actually happened, because they do not fit with the current "scientific world view".

    A good understanding of the matter is provided by D.F. Strauss in the introduction to his famous book "The life of Jesus". He is a typical example of the point of view that prevails among many researchers:

In brief, we can reject all miracles, prophesies and accounts about angels and demons and also everything that is simply impossible and in conflict with the well-known and universal laws that guide events.

Also well-known theologian Adolf von Harnack comments on the same issue:

We are completely convinced that everything happening in time and space take place subject to the laws of nature. Any "miracles" that break the order of nature cannot happen. (Adolf von Harnack, What is Christianity?, p. 28-29, New York, Putnam, 1901)

The fact that some researchers may say that no miracles or supernatural events can have happened is, however, a very bold and contradictory claim. It is based on their preconceptions and not on what we can really be sure about. Whenever someone makes such claims, the person presenting the claim should have unlimited knowledge of world history. If someone claims, “I know that miracles cannot happen”, it is the same as if he were saying that he knows all the events that took place in the history of the world. This person would need to know everything that has ever taken place, perfectly.

   But what is the truth? Is it not a fact that each of us knows only a tiny part of all that has happened? Thus, if the circle below describes all the events that have occurred in the history of the world, then the area we know remains really small. It is impossible for us to know what is possible based on this tiny area: 

The researchers' perceptions are therefore based only on their own preconceptions, not on any certain and real information. They are "children of their time" like anyone else. Therefore, they believe in this way:

Socrates: That is exactly my question, professor – miracles. I believe that it is an even more important question than any of the ones you discussed in your lecture, albeit it was perfect. Do actual miracles ever take place? And how can we know whether they take place or not? How can we find the truth as comes to this question?

Professor: An extremely good question, Socrates. But in my opinion, my lecture already explained it quite perfectly.

Socrates: Then I must have missed it because I thought that it did not give any answers. In my opinion, your lecture only dealt with the history of opinions between science and religion.

Professor: Quite so, both miracles and supernatural issues. I tried to indicate how belief in miracles always rises in pre-scientific times and disappears in scientific times, such as during our own time. The heart of the matter is, in my opinion, quite simple and apparent.

Socrates: My goodness, I am afraid that you have a real blockhead on your hands, professor. Because I really do not understand how – as a result of the fact that many people do not believe in miracles nowadays – it logically comes that miracles have never taken place.

Professor: I do not mean that.

Socrates: Well, good then. I was hoping that I had misunderstood you.

Professor: Why is that?

Socrates: Because that argument would assume that everything in which people do not believe anymore has never existed. An extremely odd supposition, which would mean that we can change the world merely by changing our beliefs, and even change the past.

Professor: Change the past?

Socrates: Yes, if you claim that miracles have never taken place in the past because scientific people in the present age do not believe in them.

Tuomas: Socrates, that is not fair. You make the professor's claim look foolish.

Socrates: My purpose is quite the opposite – to hold him clearly apart from the foolish, not to ensnare him in it. (…) (2)

Who can be A witness? When it is assumed that e.g. the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus or other similar things cannot be true, it is not based on verified facts. It is only a philosophical view - a view that is actually akin to deism and which denies God's visible intervention in the course of the world past and present.

    However, is it worth trusting current researchers and their "sure" opinions or what the eyewitnesses themselves have written and told? For several passages of the Bible refer to how the people themselves were as eyewitnesses and also as listeners. In addition, Luke told how he tried to investigate the background of well-known events, i.e. he certainly interviewed people about these events. If there is a more scientific method than eyewitness observations and careful investigation of things, as e.g. Luke did, the researchers should announce such a method:

- (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 - (John 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

- (1 John 1:1-3) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked on, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show to you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us;

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 - (Luke 1:1-4) For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them to us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That you might know the certainty of those things, wherein you have been instructed.

In the same way, John and Peter claimed to be speaking the truth:

 - (John 19:35) And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true: and he knows that he said true, that you might believe.

- (John 21:24) This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 - (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So when we look for scientificness, we are certainly on more solid ground if we trust eyewitness reports than if we trust individuals living 2000 years later who have no personal knowledge of the events. Isn't it a bold and foolish claim for someone to think they know more than the original eyewitnesses?

    Or if someone now thinks they know more than the original eyewitnesses, wouldn't it be the same as if a person with "sure information" who was 1,000 kilometers away at the time of the incident rushed to witness a traffic accident? How could anyone take us seriously if we presented ourselves as a witness like this?

the researchers' jesus. One consequence of the researchers' preconceptions - of what can and cannot happen - is that they have created their own kind of Jesus. When they have not taken the Bible as it is, they have had to give an explanation for how the stories about Jesus have started despite everything.

    So it is not surprising that when many liberal scholars have searched for the "Jesus of history" and "what he was really like" they have come up with contradictory results - results that actually cancel each other out. Some have seen Jesus as a political radical, others as a seeker of the Messiah title, others as an ordinary faith healer, of which there were many, others as a religious genius and still others as a wise teacher, who gradually became supernatural and the Son of God in the minds of his followers.

    Based on the previous one, it can be understood that the researchers' image of Jesus does not have to have anything to do with reality. Nor can it be supported by any reliable historical material. On the contrary, scholars have to use the same material from the Gospels that others have at their disposal, and this material does not support their particular views. Thus, although they have presented themselves as open-minded and scientific, they have had to resort to imagination and guesswork, because they lack concrete material. Moreover, they are left with some kind of "truncated and inferior" version of Christianity - a version that cannot help anyone eternally:

Socrates: Your religion is Christianity?

Professor: Yes.

Socrates: And your religion speaks about miracles?

Professor: Yes.

Socrates: What are these miracles?

Professor: Incarnation, the expiatory sacrifice of Christ and the resurrection, for example.

Socrates: What do those words mean?

Professor: Ah, I understand. After all, Socrates would not have known them. All right, this is a pretty good exercise. They mean that Almighty God became man, died and rose from the tomb to save us from sin, death and hell.

Socrates: And in your opinion this is not essential? If that really has happened, if it really has taken place, how can it simply be discarded like an extra piece of clothing? What will be left?

Professor: Timeless truths. How to live. Love.

Socrates: My goodness, everyone already knows them. If your religion is only capable of great platitudes, who will be interested in it then? Why be a Christian rather than something else?

Professor: I think that you must take up that question with professor Changing in the comparative religion science lecture.

Socrates: I would have rather wished to talk about it with you, as you claim to be a Christian. I still do not fully understand what it means. (…) (3) 

2. "The disciples wrote it"

We often hear the view that the stories about Jesus must be rejected because the disciples wrote about them. Some may say that the gospels were born from the early church's desire to emphasize Jesus, and therefore cannot be reliable material. However, the following objections can be made to all of this:

Is what is written and spoken true? First of all, it's good to note that it's not about who wrote it, it's about whether what's written and spoken is true. Although the Apostles were followers of Jesus and his disciples, this issue does not matter, if they spoke the truth. It is only the truth-telling that ultimately counts, and not the authors' relationship to events.

- (2 Peter 1:16) For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

- (John 21:24) This is the disciple which testifies of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

The appreciation of Jesus. The fact that the disciples considered Jesus as the Son of God and his words important proves that they tried to preserve them as original. The more someone is held in high esteem, the more carefully his words is tried to keep. Jesus' value in the eyes of the disciples motivated them to preserve the message accurately. Many researchers, of course, think the opposite.

 - (John 6:68,69) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Relationship between rabbis and their disciples. One aspect that speaks in favor of the accurate preservation of the narratives is the relationship of the Jewish rabbis with their students. In the society of that time, the teaching of famous rabbis was considered like "sacred tradition" that had to be carefully memorized and then passed on to others. Most likely, Jesus' relationship with his disciples was like this. Besides, Jesus was not just any rabbi, but the disciples understood Him to be the Messiah sent by God himself. They would not have dared to change His words, or add anything to them.

What would they have achieved by lying? If the stories about Jesus were not true, what did the disciples gain from their lie? The fact is that most of them suffered for their message and 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred (How many liberal theologians are willing to die for their beliefs?). So it is a great miracle if 12 men invent a lie for nothing and also experience martyrdom because of it like many others. The following scripture suggests how little the disciples would have benefited from their supposed lie:

I further stated that the Bible always refers to great public events. If these had not actually happened, the annulment of the Bible's information would not have produced difficulties for its enemies, who have always been in the majority. But it has not been possible. On the contrary, they have been strengthened when the message of the Bible has been despised and made ridiculous. I also stated that those who have witnessed these events have been ready to die for their testimony. They have persisted in it even though it has brought them no external benefit but only trouble, suffering and death. Why would they have done that if they weren't convinced of its truth? Why would Peter and John and Thomas and others have testified that Jesus had risen if they had not seen him? Why did they stick to their testimony even though they knew it would cause them much suffering? We can read their answers in 2 Peter 1:16- 21 and 1 John 1:1 - 3. (4)

The description of Jesus. When the claim is made that the disciples would have embellished the image of their Master with heavenly features, this is certainly not true. If they wanted to do that, they surely would have created a completely different character. They would have created some sort of triumphant hero. Doctor Chr. Ernst Luthard has written about this:

But if the disciples had, according to their expectations, created a picture of the Messiah they certainly would have done it in another way. They would have created a royal son of David, and not a Galilean prophet, crucified and resurrected. The outward reality of Jesus' history was more of an obstacle than an aid to their faith, as it was not in line with their wishes. Only the influence of Jesus' personality raised them higher than all insults of their faith and assured them that He was the Messiah. (5)

The disposition of Paul. The following verses describe the character of Paul, the man who wrote most of the New Testament letters. It is unlikely that any person like Paul was guilty of lying:

- (2 Cor 12:14,15) Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.

- (2 Cor 2:3,4) And I wrote this same to you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.

4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that you might know the love which I have more abundantly to you.

- (Rom 9:1-3) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh

 - (2 Tim 3:10,11) But you have fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

- (Phil 3:17) Brothers, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an example.

Archaeological and other findings. Many archaeological and other findings prove the reliability of the Gospels. They show how the writings are closely related to the life and conditions of society at that time.

    Researcher-archaeologist William Ramsay - a person who has studied the reliability of the Gospel of Luke and especially the Acts of the Apostles, has stated:

At first I had a negative attitude towards it, for the ingenuity and apparent gaplessness of Tubingen's theory had at one point convinced me completely... Gradually, I realized that the various details of the (biblical) narrative were amazingly truthful. I had begun with the certainty that the work had been written in the second century and that it did not reliably describe the conditions of the first century, but gradually I found it a useful ally in some difficult studies. (6)

Ramsay has elsewhere referred to Luke's importance as a historian:

Luke is a forefront historian; he describes the facts reliably, but in addition to that he shows genuine comprehension of history; he internalizes the large lines of historical development and proportions his presentation to the significance of each case. He seizes on important and decisive events and, through their extensive treatment, demonstrates that correct view, but only briefly or not at all addresses topics that are irrelevant to him. In brief, this author should be among the greatest historians. (7)

A.N. Sherwin-White, a researcher of the classical era who has been regarded as the pre-eminent expert of Roman law, also wrote about the reliability of the Acts of the Apostles (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 173). He states that attempts to deny its reliability are absurd:

The historical accuracy of the Acts has proven to be amazing. (…) All attempts to deny the fundamental historicity of Acts, even in small details, now seem necessarily preposterous. Scholars of Roman history have long taken it for granted.

The well-known archaeologist Nelson Glueck wrote (Rivers of the Desert, 1959, p. 31) about archaeology related to the Bible. He indicates that the archaeological findings confirm the historical reliability of the Bible:

Absolutely and certainly speaking, not a single archaeological finding has ever questioned any passage of the Bible. Tens of archaeological findings that confirm the historical statements of the Bible either in broad outline or in detail have been made. (8) 

Miracles. When the view is presented that the miracles, which Jesus worked and His resurrection are not true, it is not consistent with other sources:

• The Jewish historian Josephus talks about the miracles performed by Jesus and His resurrection.

• The Talmud, which contains the writings of the religious Jews of the time (mainly the Pharisees), mentions the miracles performed by both Jesus and the disciples, although it warned against resorting to the help of disciples even in distress of death

• The fragment of Quadratus mentions how Jesus, when he was on earth, had healed and raised people from the dead, some of whom were still alive then.

• Barnabas's letter mentions miracles and signs performed by Jesus.

Extra-biblical sources. As for written sources other than the Bible, they are essentially similar to what the disciples wrote. The Gospel descriptions and these external sources are not very different from each other. Sources outside the Bible give the following picture of Jesus:

• Jesus was a man filled with wisdom, if he can even be called a man (Josephus).

• Jesus was known by the name Jesus the Nazarene (Talmud).

• He said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Talmud).

• He was a teacher (Josephus, Talmud).

• He had disciples (Talmud).

• He worked miracles (Josephus, Talmud).

• His disciples healed the sick and worked miracles (Talmud).

• Pilate (26–36 A.D.) condemned Him to death (Tacitus, Josephus) because of the provocation of influential Jewish men (Josephus) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14–37 AD.) (Tacitus).

• He was condemned to death on the cross (Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Talmud).

• There was darkness at the time of His crucifixion (Thallus).

• He was crucified during the Passover (Talmud).

• He rose from the dead (Josephus).

• The successors of Jesus regarded Him as God and sang songs to praise Him (Plinius the Younger).

• He had Jewish and Greek successors (Josephus).

• Faith in Christ originated from Judea (Tacitus, Josephus) and spread to Rome from there (Tacitus).

• Jesus' successors were called Christians (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius the Younger).

• Jesus had a brother called James (Josephus).

• Jesus was called Christ or the Messiah (Josephus).

OTHER THINGS THAT TESTIFY FOR THE GOSPELS. In addition to the foregoing, there are other facts that testify in favor of the reliability of the Gospels. Among them are the following:

Unfavorable material from the point of view of the writers. One thing that proves the truthfulness of the Gospels is the unfavorable information in them (concerning the writers and Jesus) that certainly would have been left out if the disciples had not tried to be truthful and tell how matters really were. Such unfavorable points are, for instance, the fact that Jesus could not perform any miracles in Galilee (Mark 6:5) and that His brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5), many people turning away from Him and no longer following Him (John 6:66), Jesus' words to the rich young man, "Why call you me good?" (Mark 10:18), some other people claiming that Jesus did miracles by the power of Beelzebub (Matt 12:24), Peter denying Jesus (Matt 26:69-75), some doubting when they saw the risen Lord, (Matt 28:17) as well as the disciples fearing and being behind locked doors (John 20:19).

   The existence of such negative references in the text, strongly support the historical accuracy of the events.

There is no clear reason – except that the writers wanted to tell the matters just as they were – for why the Gospels include such a strange detail as Jesus shouting on the cross while dying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" If the primary target of the writers of the Gospels was to describe Christ as the Messiah ("the Anointed one") and as the Son of God, by no means would they have included this passage in their accounts. And they certainly could not have made it up! (9)

Large public events and crowds. A strong point that proves the historical accuracy of these events are the crowds of thousands of people that appeared during the activity of both Jesus and the Apostles. The Apostles might also, in their public speeches, appeal (Acts 2:14-36, 3:12-26, 7:2-53, 13:16-41, 17: 22-31, 22:3-21, 24:10-21, 26:2-23) to the fact that the listeners themselves knew the matters and that they had not happened in any remote location. It would have been impossible to talk about and write about such things, or to make thousands believe in Christ if they had not really been true. There were a lot of hostile witnesses around who could have immediately refuted the misinformation. The following verses, among others, refer to large numbers of people:

- (Matt 4:24,25) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought to him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

- (Mark 3:8) And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came to him.

- (Matt 14:16,20,21) But Jesus said to them, They need not depart; give you them to eat.

20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

- (Matt 16:9-11) Do you not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up?

11 How is it that you do not understand that I spoke it not to you concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?  

- (Acts 2:22,40,41) You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you yourselves also know

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.

- (Acts 26:24-26) And as he thus spoke for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, you are beside yourself; much learning does make you mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

26 For the king knows of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

 - (Acts10:37,38) That word, I say, you know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Several well-known people. The Bible often speaks about influential people who are known from history (Herod the Great, Pilate, Caiphas the High Priest and his father-in-law Annas, Joseph of Arimathea, the prominent member of the Council, Herod Agrippa, Gamaliel, Proconsul Sergius Paulus, Proconsul Gallio, King Agrippa, Governor Felix, Governor Porcius Festus, etc.) and refers to large and public events. If these events had not taken place, it would not have been difficult for the opponents of the Gospel to invalidate the information of the Bible, as they were always the majority and many of them were still alive at the time when the New Testament was written. As Polycarpos, a pupil of the Apostle John, said:

So sure is the foundation upon which these gospels rest, that even it is the heretics themselves who testify for them, and on the basis of them each of them try to draw up their own special doctrines. (10)

Everything has a root cause. The fact that the Christian church started in the first century and began to grow explosively, must be some reason why this happened. Nothing can be born out of nothing. If Jesus was not this reason, then another reason must be found instead.

    But why would we look for another reason or an unknown person, about whom the historical sources say nothing, when there is enough information about the importance of Jesus as the first cause? If He had not been considered the Son of God, His resurrection and miracles as facts, His life as the fulfillment of prophecies, and especially His position as propitiator and Savior (the most important thing!) surely nothing would have been written about Him. If He wasn't that different from other people, what would have been the point of writing about Him? The only reasonable explanation for writing about Him must have been that the events actually occurred, and the disciples - the witnesses – wanted to record their testimony.

 - (Luke 24:47,48) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And you are witnesses of these things.

Accurate details. If the many accounts in the Bible were not true, they could not contain the same exact details that the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are flooded with. Many of the accounts and fabricated stories do not include accurate details, while the Gospels include many. They are irrelevant to the narrative itself. In general, the exact details suggest that people who witnessed and experienced the events were present.  The following quote confirms the importance of the details:

The Gospel accounts are full of minor details that are not directly related to the plot. Historians (and lawyers) generally agree that this is a sign of an eyewitness account (or at least of an account passed by an eyewitness). Johannes, for example, mentions that he won Peter in the race to the grave. He goes on to say that he peered into the burial chamber and saw that the shrouds were there, but that he did not go inside himself. After arriving at the place, Peter went to the tomb and noticed "the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen." (John 20:4-8).

    There is no obvious reason for adding these details; they add nothing at all to what is essential to the story. On the contrary, they are quite unexpected. Who would have deliberately made up a story from which it can be concluded that Jesus rose from the dead naked? The existence of such details can only mean one thing - that this is exactly how it all happened. (11)

No mythology. Although the gospels tell about supernatural things, the gospels' narratives do not contain any mythological features. On the contrary, they are very moderate when talking about things. For example, the mistakes and shortcomings of the disciples are depicted realistically, and they are not made into invincible heroes and heroines, which is so common in ancient folk tales. Another point that speaks in favor of the reliability of the stories is that they were written only within a few decades of the events themselves and when there were still hostile opponents. In such a short time, there would certainly not be time to create any serious legends.

   C. S. Lewis, who has been a professor at the University of Oxford, has referred to the content of the Gospels and how they do not at all resemble legends:

As a researcher of literary history, I am completely convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends in the least. I have read plenty of legends and it is completely clear to me that these are not such.

the Simplicity of THINGS. Some scholars have pointed out that the Gospels cannot be trusted because they are contradictory and the sequence of events in them varies. They think that these things could undermine their historical credibility and take away from it.

    However, we can say here that perhaps the researchers themselves do not see the forest from the trees, i.e. they are not able to separate the whole from the irrelevant things (or as Jesus said, "You blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel", Matt 23:24). Whether Jesus has lived should be more important than the order in which he has said and done something. The order of the speeches is not that important from the point of view of the whole (although some kind of order of events can be clearly discerned.). Or should we assume that the Gospels are identical word for word? Wouldn't this then be used to support only that the gospels are invented and fabricated stories? (When a traffic accident happens, people may have slightly different opinions about it, but it still does not invalidate the thing that has happened.)

    Therefore, it is good to understand that small contradictions are insignificant and irrelevant from the point of view of understanding the whole and the message. It is more important that the gospels answer the most important questions, that is, who Jesus Christ is. They point the way to Him, which is the most important thing.

    The most important thing for us is whether Jesus lived, what He said and did, and whether we accept the message about Him or not. We will look at all three of these things separately:

Did Jesus live? The first thing on the list is the question of whether Jesus lived, that is, whether He is a historical person. And actually, the question has already been answered: it was established that He really lived and was on earth. In addition to the Gospels, He is referred to e.g. in such sources as the historian Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus. They show that He once lived on earth.

    The Encylopedia Britannica (15th ed., vol. 3, p. 145) refers to these extra-biblical sources about Christ as follows:

These separate reports prove that in the ancient times even the enemies of Christianity never doubted that Jesus was a historical person. The first time it was questioned was by many writers at the end of the 1700s, in the 1800s and in the beginning of the 1900s, with insufficient proof.

Gottlieb Klein was the main rabbi in Stockholm. Martin Buber, philosopher and Hasidic theologian, once stated that Gottlieb Klein knew the Jewish literature from the time of the second temple better than anybody else. Klein wrote in his book Is Jesus a Historical Person that Jesus surely lived on Earth:

My conclusion, which I have not come to at the last minute, but which has been formed after more than three decades and as a fruit of examining the history of the New Testament, can be summarized as follows: No other doctrine of ancient times has been recorded more clearly, precisely and with a more personal stamp than the doctrine of Jesus. We can see and hear a real, a specific person before our eyes, who has the features of His time and who can be explained only in the light of the conditions that prevailed during His own time and environment. We look in vain elsewhere for the ethical monotheism that Jesus preached in the spirit of the prophets and equally with them. We look in vain elsewhere for a similar Jewish world of thought, where Jesus walked. The sure historical fact, which no professor can ever change, therefore, is: Jesus is a historical person. (12)

What Jesus spoke and did? The next question concerns what Jesus spoke about and what He did. We can believe that the Gospels have enough information about this. The writings show, for example, how Jesus is the only way to God and how only in Him is eternal life. Several verses indicate the significance of Jesus Christ:

- (John 8:24) I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

- (John 8:45,46) And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?

- (John 5:40) And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

To receive the message or to reject it. The third thing is receiving. When it was stated above that Jesus is a historical person and that eternal life can only be found through Him, we also have a part in the matter. We have to want to turn to Him and give our lives to God. Grace has already come through Jesus, but we can reject it, if we turn our back on God. Do not, therefore, reject the mercy of God and undervalue this important issue:

 - (2 Cor 6:1) We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that you receive not the grace of God in vain.

3. Has the Bible's text remained unchanged?

One claim that is sometimes made is that the Bible is not in its original form, but that its text was changed at some later stage. It has been thought that maybe the text we read today is not the same as it was originally.

    But if we look at this claim, there is hardly any evidence for it. This is shown by e.g. the following points:

The abundant number of manuscripts. Although the original texts of the New Testament are not preserved, the fact is that many copies of them have been preserved from very early times, as proof that the text format remained the same. The general rule in this area is that the more manuscripts of a text have survived, the more certain the original form of the text can be determined.

    Thus, at least more than 24,000 manuscript versions of the New Testament or part of it have survived in Greek and other early versions (100-400 AD). This number is huge when compared to the fact that Homer's Iliad is second in terms of ancient texts, of which there are only 643 surviving documents - that is, the difference is almost 40 times. Similarly, there are only 10 surviving documents about Caesar's Gallic War, which is an unusually small number compared to the New Testament, and still no one doubts the reliability of this work. The following list shows the number of surviving copies (information from Christianity: Hoax or History? by Josh McDowell):

Number of copies / Work

10  / Caesar                                   

20  / Livius                                     

7   /  Platon (tetraloges])                   

20  / Tacitus (annals)                     

1   / Tacitus (smaller volumes)      

7   / Plinius younger (history)        

8   / Thukydides (history)               

8   / Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 

8   / Herodotos (history)               

     / Horatio

193 / Sofocles                           

2    / Lucretius       

3    / Catullus        

9    / Euripides      

200 / Demosthenes 

49   / Aristotle  

10   / Aristophanes 

643 / Homeros (Iliad) 

over 24 000 / New Testament

Short time interval. The time interval between an original text and its earliest copy can provide insight into the quality of its preservation. The shorter the interval between the original text and the earliest found copy, the more likely the text has remained the same.

    The New Testament is in a good position in this area. While in the case of ancient literature the time interval from the earliest copy to the writing of the original text itself is on average 1000 years, in the case of the New Testament it is only a few decades (depending on when the Gospel of John was written), which is many times less than in these other texts. The short period of time for the New Testament, as well as the large number of surviving copies, strengthens the image that the text of the New Testament has been preserved for us as an original.

    The following list shows the same thing, i.e. the interval between the earliest copy and the original text. It is a question of different texts of antiquity (information from Christianity: Hoax or History? by Josh McDowell):

Interval between original
text and earliest copy

1000 y / Caesar

          / Livius

1200 y / Platon (tetralogies])

1000 y / Tacitus (annals)

900   y / Tacitus (smaller volumes)

750   y / Plinius younger (history)

1300 y / Thukydides (history)

800  y / Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum)

1300 y / Herodotos (history)

900  y / Horatio

1400 y / Sofocles

100   y / Lucretius

1600 y / Catullus

1500 y /Euripides

1300 y / Demosthenes

1400 y / Aristotle

1200 y / Aristophanes

500  y / Homeros (Iliad)

25    y / New testament

The same text. New Testament texts were preserved in many old manuscripts, and there are very few differences – so few that from a practical point of view they are insignificant. When it comes to the uniformity of the texts, F.C. Grant stated:

It is obvious to the observant reader that... checking has not affected any doctrine of the Christian faith, for the simple reason that not a single one has emerged from among the thousands of ways of reading the manuscripts that requires a revision of the Christian doctrine. (13)

Also, Sir Frederic Kenyon commented on the same issue:

The interval between the original writing and the earliest surviving written evidence becomes so small that it has no factual significance, and the final justification for the suspicion that the Bible has substantially changed in its journey has now been removed. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament, that they are genuine and unchanged, can now be deemed completely confirmed. (14)

Quotes from the New Testament. Other evidence pointing to the originality of the books in the New Testament is the early church fathers’ quotes from them. Even if copies or parts of the New Testament texts had not survived, we could still reconstruct nearly the whole New Testament (except for 11 verses) from these quotes that have been preserved. According to research done by the British Museum, it is possible to find about 89,000 passages of the New Testament from among the writings of the early church. This number is very significant, and indicates how much the New Testament was used already in the early times. As to the number of these references, Sir Frederic Kenyon stated:

We cannot stress too much that the Bible’s – in this case especially the New Testament’s – main textual content is certain. The number of the manuscripts of the New Testament, early translations and quotes that earlier writers of the church have used is so great that it is practically sure that for every passage that has been under suspicion, the right reading has been preserved at least in some of these texts. This cannot be said about any other ancient book in the world. (15)

THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The previous paragraphs have mainly dealt with the text of the New Testament. However, when it comes to the preservation of the text of the Old Testament unchanged, there is evidence for that as well. The following two things can be mentioned among them:

Quotations in the New Testament. Of course, one good piece of evidence is that there are quotations and references to the Old Testament on the New Testament side. There are even hundreds of these quotations and they appear both in Jesus' speeches and in e.g. Paul's letters.

    What is essential in the hundreds of quotations is that they confirm the textual form of the Old Testament. They show that the texts remained the same just as the quotations from the New Testament by the church fathers confirm the texts of the New Testament. They show that the texts of the Old Testament – of which the most recent reached their final form about 400 years earlier – were not changed.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are another strong proof that the texts have remained the same. These scrolls, which were found near the Dead Sea and the oldest of which date back to the 3rd century BC, are not much different from today's books. On the contrary, these scrolls, which have been found in all the books of the Old Testament except the Book of Esther, are very similar to those of today. Thus, the idea that the text of the Old Testament or the entire Bible has changed substantially is baseless and cannot be proven. We can well believe that the texts have remained essentially the same.

4. The dating of the Gospels

When it comes to the time when the gospels, or the books about the life of Jesus, were written, some researchers have wanted to date their birth very late. They have said that "The New Testament cannot be very accurate because it was written so much after the time of Jesus." They have considered the Gospels unreliable because they believe them to be of rather late origin.

    But how is it? Is the notion of a late date of writing correct or not? In what follows, we examine evidence that suggests just the opposite. They suggest that the Gospels were written quite early. 

The writers are well-known. One clear proof of the early origin of the Gospels is that their authors were either apostles themselves who lived at the same time as Jesus (Matthew, John), or they were in contact with the apostles (Mark and Luke). Sources such as Papias, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Origen, Clemens of Alexandria, and a fragment of Muratorio also confirm the identity of the authors, so that there is no ambiguity as to who wrote the books. For example, the following account has been preserved about Mark and the gospel bearing his name (statement of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. He knew the apostle John):

The elder [the Apostle John] also used to say this: "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, carefully recorded everything he [Peter] mentioned of either Christ's words or works, but not in chronological order. For he was not a hearer and follower of the Lord; but later on, as I said, he followed Peter who adapted his teaching according to need, not in order to dictate a collection of words of the Lord.

    Therefore, Mark did not make any mistakes when he this way wrote down some points as Peter mentioned them; since he paid attention to this exact point: to mention everything he had heard; and he would not add any wrong evidence. (16)

So one can ask, how can the books be of late origin, if the authors were clearly contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles? The lifetime of the apostles - many of them, like Peter, died already in the 60s - sets its own time limits for the birth of the gospels. It is certainly impossible that they could have written them after their death. Likewise, checking things with them would no longer have been successful at that point.

    The conclusion is that these texts must have been written much earlier than is generally assumed. For example, the well-known liberal scholar John A.T. Robinson came to the conclusion - after re-examining the matter - that all the gospels must have been born between the years 40 and 65. Only preconceived views can lead to the idea that they are of late origin.

The information about society. Both the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles include several details of a historical, geographical and religious nature about the society of the time – quite detailed information and harder to explain the later these books are dated. These pieces of information include, for example:

• Titles of persons. For example, Luke uses exactly the right titles and job titles of different people - titles which it would have been problematic to know later, because the titles and job areas of the people changed frequently. Perhaps it is precisely the use of the right titles and at the right time that has made the biggest impression on researchers familiar with the matter. The most reasonable explanation is to accept the idea that the writings were not created very long after the actual events.

• Information related to Jerusalem (it was destroyed in AD 70) and geography has been confirmed several times. Solomon's colonnade (John 10:23), the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2) and several other discoveries are those that have confirmed the correspondence of the texts with archaeology.

    When there are things like this in the text, especially things related to Jerusalem, it is difficult to write them very late, because the city was destroyed in 70 and almost nothing remained of it. Only people who knew the history and the buildings of the city well before the destruction could have written about these things. This clearly sets its own time limits for the birth of the gospels. They couldn't have been born very late.

• Eyewitness descriptions. It was mentioned above that the texts are rich in details and eyewitness accounts that are difficult to explain if they are dated very late. The most reasonable alternative is to accept the explanation that the writings must have been created during the generation that was there to see and experience the events.

The relationship between Acts and the Gospels. When searching for a key to the dating of the Gospels, one important key is found in the dating of the Acts of the Apostles. If the time of its writing is known, the gospels must have been ready before then.

    For almost all researchers are of the opinion that the Gospels (at least the first three) must have been born before the Acts of the Apostles, e.g. due to the following factors:

1. The Gospels describe events up to and including the year 30 A.D., whereas the Acts of the Apostles describes events that occurred before approximately 60 A.D. This means that there is a difference of almost thirty years between them.

2. Luke, who wrote the gospel that goes by his name and the Acts of the Apostles, wrote the gospel first - Cf. Luke 1:1 and Acts 1:1.

3. It was mentioned above that Luke wrote his Gospel before the Acts of the Apostles.

    However, it is generally believed that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written before Luke. In addition, according to church tradition, Matthew's Gospel was written first among the Gospels (This was stated by Irenaeus, who said that Matthew was the first to publish his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language. Irenaeus' statement is made significant by the fact that he was in contact with Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John.). This would show that the first three gospels are Matthew, Mark (it was also stated above that Mark was Peter's interpreter) and Luke in their order of writing, and that the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke was completed only after these.

So if we know when the Acts of the Apostles was written, we know that the Gospels must have been written before that time.

   When did Luke write the Acts of the Apostles, then? Was this text written at some later point in time or was it written closer to the events it mentions? Below are some reasons why it is justified to believe that the text had already been written by the early ’60s:

• Not once does Luke mention in the Acts of the Apostles the shocking devastation of Jerusalem and its temple in the year 70 A.D. during which approximately a million people died. Neither does he mention the rebellion against the Romans that led to the destruction and started in 66 A.D. This is significant because in the Acts of the Apostles, Jerusalem is the central place and Luke does mention a smaller skirmish between the Jews and the Romans that took place in 44 A.D. He would certainly have mentioned the events of 66 and 70 A.D. if they had already occurred. The fact that he does not mention these events clearly suggests that he must have written the text before those events took place.

• In the earlier work of Luke Jesus prophesies the devastation of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But the Acts of the Apostles does not include any reference to the fulfillment of this prophecy. Certainly Luke would have mentioned it, if it had already taken place when he was writing the Acts of the Apostles.

   Actually, there is not even one reference in any book of the New Testament to the actual devastation of Jerusalem and its temple: it is always referred to as an event in the future, not something that has already happened. This omission can only be explained by the fact that the texts were written before the devastation of Jerusalem occurred.

• Luke’s description of Rome and its administrative organization is quite peaceful. He does not mention, for example, Emperor Nero who widely persecuted the Christians after 64 A.D. – even though he does mention other emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, in The Acts 11:28). This suggests that Luke must have written the Acts of the Apostles before 64 A.D.

• The Acts of the Apostles ends with Apostle Paul being still alive in Rome; his death is not mentioned (in 64 A.D.?). Neither does Luke mention the martyrdom of Peter (65 A.D.) and James (62 A.D.) – although even historian Josephus mentions the death of James – but he does describe in detail the deaths of other “less important” leaders such as Stephanus and the other James.

   This omission by Luke is significant, because approximately half of the Acts of the Apostles discusses Paul, a large portion of it Peter, and James is also an important person. The only reasonable explanation is that Luke must have written the text before these people died. There is no other way to account for the fact that he did not write about their deaths.

The letters of Paul. Even if there were not any evidence of the early origin of the Gospels, the picture they give of Jesus can also be found elsewhere in the New Testament. Paul, whose letters are generally acknowledged to have been written between 50-60 A.D., has written about Jesus in a very similar way. The image of Jesus that he presents does not differ much from the image that the gospels present.

    What makes the picture presented by Paul significant is that he too was a contemporary of Jesus and the first disciples. He met the other apostles a couple of times (Gal 1:18, 2:1,9) and exerted influence at the same time.

    Paul's letters (marked with P) and the Gospels (E) have the following similarities. These similarities show that the Gospels give a very similar picture of Jesus to Paul's letters, which are supposed to have been written in 50 – 60 A.D.

The creator of all:

- (John 1:3 G) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

- (Col 1:16 P) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

God who became a man:

- (John 1:1,14 G) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

- (Phil 2:5-8 P) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.

- (Rom 9:5 P) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Came to save people:

- (Luke 19:10 G) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

- (1 Tim 1:15 P) This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

The judge of all:

- (Matt 16:27 G) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

- (2 Cor 5:10 P) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad.

The second coming:

- (Matt 24:30 G) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

- (1 Thess 4:15,16 P) For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Came under the law and fulfilled the law:

- (Matt 5:17 G) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

- (Gal 4:4,5 P) But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Suffered:

- (Luke 17:25 G) But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

- (Hebr 2:18 P) For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.

Sinless:

- (John 8:45,46 G) And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

46 Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?

- (Hebr 4:15 P) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Betrayed:

- (Matt 26:25 G) Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I?  He said to him, You have said.

- (1 Cor 11:23 P) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

Condemned before Pilate:

- (Matt 27:2 G) And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

- (1 Tim 6:13 P) I give you charge in the sight of God, who vivifies all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;

Crucified:

- (Luke 23:33 G) And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

- (1 Cor 2:8 p) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

- (2 Cor 13:4 P) For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

- (Gal 3:1 P) O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Rose from the dead:

- (Luke 24:5,6 G) And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why seek you the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spoke to you when he was yet in Galilee,

- (1 Cor 15:17,20 G) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are yet in your sins.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.

Grace through Him:

- (John 1:17 G) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

- (1 Cor 1:4 P) I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

 We can be saved by believing in Him:

- (John 1:12 G) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 - (Rom 10:11 P) For the scripture said, Whoever believes on him shall not be ashamed.

Only way to salvation:

- (John 14:6 G) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (1 Cor 3:11 P) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

- (Eph 3:12 P)  In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

5. On the road to guesswork

Occasionally, some liberal researchers make claims that some new, important material has been found that contradicts and refutes the biblical image of Jesus. Often in this context, the gospel of Thomas, the secret gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Peter, and especially the so-called Q-source are mentioned. They are said to refute the image of Jesus given by the New Testament. As for these sources, however, it is good to study them and their reliability a little separately. We will find that there are a number of problems with them, some of which are mentioned below:

Finding of the sources. The following is known about how the four writings mentioned above were found:

• The Q source has never been found. It is based on a mere hypothesis, and assumed to have existed. However, more and more researchers doubt that it even exists.

• The Secret Gospel of Mark is based on the claim of Morton Smith that he found a letter by Clemens Alexandrian (ca. 150–215 A.D.), in which this writing was mentioned.

   The problem is that nobody has ever seen the secret gospel of Mark. Another problem is that nobody has ever seen the above-mentioned letter by Clemens; it disappeared mysteriously from the monastery in which Morton Smith claimed to have found it! This kind of evidence has no value whatsoever.

• The gospel of Thomas has never been commonly known or accepted. It was actually not found until a little more than fifty years ago, and most researchers date it at the middle of the second century. This collection includes clear Gnostic features (for example, a woman must make herself a man in order to enter the kingdom of heaven), and in it there are also some familiar words of Jesus from the Gospels, but there is no reason to assume that they are anything more than quotes from the Gospels of the New Testament.

   As a matter of fact, this text cannot even be regarded as an actual gospel, because it does not tell when and in which situations the words were spoken. It only includes separate expressions with no historical frame of reference.

• The myth-like Gospel of Peter was found as recently as a little over hundred years ago.

Myth-like. Many of the above-mentioned sources and books of apocrypha are myth-like.

   For example, the Gospel of Peter mentioned above includes Jesus who feels no pain on the cross. When he comes out of the tomb, there are two men with him whose heads almost reach the heavens, and the head of Jesus reaches above the heaven! In addition to this, a speaking cross comes out of the tomb after them!

   In the gospel of Thomas it is told how the child Jesus plays and creates living sparrows from clay, and as a learning carpenter, stretches wooden logs as if they were rubber, and also makes other tricks with no purpose in mind. This list could go on and on.

   J.B. Phillips, in his book Ring of Truth: A Translator's Testimony (1967, p. 95), wrote that these writings that were left out of the New Testament are based on magic and belief, myths and imagination:

"I could not but admire their wisdom. Apparently, most people have not had the opportunity to read the apocryphal 'gospels' and 'letters', although all researchers have. All I can say here is that in these writings we pass into a world of magic and belief, myths and imagination. While translating the New Testament, I never - - sensed the eerie world of witchcraft and magical powers that emanates from the books left out of the New Testament. It was the reality-conscious faith of the writers of the New Testament that convinced me of the unfalsifiable authenticity of their writings." (17)

The time of writing. In addition to the books of apocrypha being myth-like and based on imagination, they have also been normally dated at the 2^nd or 3^rd century or even at a more recent point in time. Thus, they have been written a long time after the actual events and they also lack the eyewitness descriptions and the accurate geographical and other details that are so usual in the New Testament. These properties are completely missing from these writings of a later point in time.

6. The current books of the New Testament

Many liberal researchers try to bring out the myth-like books of the apocrypha, but there are several good reasons why the current books of the New Testament are a part of the New Testament. We are going to study these reasons first from the point of view of the four Gospels: