More than any other books in the Bible, the four gospels focus on Jesus Christ. The Old Testament writers speak of Him, looking forward to His arrival. He is the hope of the Old Testament prophets. Likewise the New Testament writers speak of Him, looking back at what He accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection. The last book, Revelation is looking forward to the Christ coming again, in power to judge and set all things right.

Thus we can say that the heart of the Bible is in the four Gospels, which center on the work of Christ, particularly His death and resurrection. Without attempting to exalt one portion of Scripture above another, I think that we can legitimately say that it is more necessary to give proofs for the truthfulness of the gospel writings than for other parts of Scripture.

If legal rules and principles were to be applied to the gospel records, would they be admissible in court? What are the legal rules which we should apply and by which these writings should be examined? We mention the following:

The rule is that every ancient document, coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no alterations or evident marks of forgery, is presumed by the law to be genuine. An ancient document is considered to come from the proper repository when it is found in a place where it would naturally and normally be expected and under the care of persons who would normally be responsible for its preservation and transmission to future generations. Such custody and care gives authenticity to the document. The responsibility then of proving that such a document is a forgery or has been corrupted in some way rests upon the objector.

Let’s take an example: A wealthy man, Mr. Smith of Washington, D.C., dies. After his burial, his wife and children are naturally concerned with the disposition of his money and property in accordance with his wishes as expressed in his will. What is the proper repository or custody where Mr. Smith's will can be expected to be found? Of course, it would be where he normally kept papers and records of permanent value. Is there a safe or a strong box in the house in which he kept these records? Did he maintain a safety deposit box at the bank in which he kept vital records? Very likely his wife collaborated in drawing up the will, and they agreed on the place where it would be kept. The will is located, it is properly signed, and the signature was witnessed. It bears no erasures or other indications of deliberate changes. The Probate Court would accept it as authentic and would use it in directing the disposition of his property.

But suppose a month after the man's death a telephone call is received from someone in Alaska who says, "I just heard of Mr. Smith's death. I am so sorry. As you know, I was his second cousin. Incidentally, I have a will in my possession in which he left all of his property to me." Immediately the question arises — what is a Washington, D.C, man's will doing in the custody of someone in Alaska? Such an alleged will would have no standing in court. The Alaska resident would have to take upon himself the burden of presenting evidence that the will found in Mr. Smith's normal repository was fraudulent — a heavy burden indeed.

We have the sacred New Testament writings which have been passed down from one generation to the next since the first century. The proper repository is the Church and the Christian community. These writings have been in continuous use in all branches of Christendom, such as Protestant, Catholic, and Greek Orthodox, throughout the centuries. The writings used by these various branches are identical, with only the slightest discrepancies.

We also have the sacred Old Testament writings which were passed down by the Jewish community from one generation to the next. The accuracy of the text was jealously guarded. For example, a scroll containing a large section of Isaiah, dating back to 200 B.C., was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is identical to the Isaiah found in our Bibles today with only a very few minor discrepancies.

The foregoing points out the fatal flaw of religious writings of relatively recent findings, such as the Book of Mormon, allegedly discovered in a cave 180 years or so ago, engraved on golden plates. One must ask, what are so-called sacred writings containing allegedly brand new truth, never before given, doing in a cave? A cave is not a proper repository for current and relevant sacred writings. Further, why has the Church and the Christian community been deprived for 1800 years of supposedly God-given revelation? It is up to "Mr. Johnnie Come Lately" to establish two facts: (1) that sacred Scriptures in the Church's uninterrupted possession for over 1900 years are forgeries or have been corrupted; (2) that the cave-located writings are genuine revelations and, therefore, should be regarded as superseding the sacred Scriptures.

Obviously, he cannot shoulder such a burden of proof. One cannot help but think of Paul's statement in Gal. 1:8, "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Someone may agree that the above rule is well and good as long as we possess the originals of sacred writings. "The problem is that we do not have such originals. They have been irretrievably lost. Can we rely on copies?" This brings into focus Rule 2, which states: "On all issues of public and general interest, all persons charged with the responsibility of making copies are presumed to be competent and to be thoroughly familiar with their tasks. Therefore, copies made by them are entitled to the same degree of confidence and acceptance as are given the originals,"

We do not have the original of the Gettysburg Address, delivered by Abraham Lincoln. The original was loaned to the City of Chicago for exhibition and was destroyed in the great fire of Chicago in the late 1800's. How do we know we have the authentic text? Copies were made and published in newspapers and periodicals throughout the country, accurate to the last punctuation mark. No one today, more than 130 years later, would quibble about the authenticity of the text by saying, "But we do not have the original and, therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure of the exact text." The passage of time will have no effect whatsoever on the authenticity of these copies. Even 5000 years from now, if the world should stand that long, there would never be the slightest question of doubt as to its accuracy.

Copies of the sacred Scriptures have been in use in the Church since God's revelation was committed to writing by holy men of old. Such copies came into familiar use in the churches. It can be said without any question of doubt that copyists, charged with copying the sacred text, were meticulous and careful beyond belief. This should be readily apparent. For example, an employee charged with copying a vitally important Government document would be expected to assume unusual care to insure that the copy was correct. The copy would be compared and proof read with the original text.

Accordingly, the believer is not required to offer any further proof of the genuineness of Bible documents. If an objector charges that these documents are in any respect spurious or that changes occurred or additions were made, the burden of proof rests upon him to show that this is so.

Let us say that in the illustration given above, Mr. Smith leaves all of his money and property to his wife with the exception of $50,000 to each of his two children and $50,000 to his butler. The children voice their objections by saying, "Our father loved us. He was generous to us while he lived. We are sure that he intended to give us a larger amount. Accordingly, we regard the part of his will giving us only $50,000 and the same amount to his butler serious questions." They call in a document expert or put the will under a magnifying glass to try to prove that it has been altered. The fact remains that they cannot remove this portion from the will and substitute something else more to their liking. The will must be accepted in its entirety.

The gospel records have been transmitted to us in their totality from the first century and, therefore, must be accepted in their totality. What right does Mr. Critic have to say that a certain passage does not seem to be consistent with the character and person of Christ and, therefore, can be excised. For example, Matt. 10:34 has Christ saying, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. i carne not to send peace, but a sword." Mr. Critic says that such a statement does not sound like one coming from the lips of the gentle Jesus, who said, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." Therefore, since he does not think Christ made the Matt. 10:34 statement, he takes the liberty of cutting that passage from the text.

Matt. 27:62-66 records that the enemies of Christ arranged for a guard at His tomb to prevent an alleged possible theft attempt by His disciples. Rabbi Schoenfield in his book, The Passover Plot, eliminates the Matthew passage from the text by saying that we may well regard it as "a late addition." On what authority can such a statement be made? No basis is given. One must marvel at the effrontery of men who arbitrarily eliminate what does not conform to their peculiar views. In fact, it has been reported that the words of some New Testament epistles are being fed into computers to determine whether Paul or others were the actual authors, as claimed. How can a computer decide?

Thomas Jefferson eliminated all references to the miraculous and the supernatural in his "bible," which he called "The Life and Morals of Jesus," because he did not believe in the supernatural. Another critic does not believe in the virgin birth of Christ and, therefore, eliminates passages concerning it. But individuals do not have the right to make such deletions in ancient writings which have been passed down to us. The text must be accepted in its completeness, and if objection is made to a certain part, it is up to the objector to present sufficient and substantial evidence to support his objections.

IV. There is sufficient probability that the testimony of the Gospel writers is true

In a trial where effort is made to establish facts by oral testimony, the essential question is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false or incorrect but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true. It would be unreasonable and absurd to insist on the production of demonstrable evidence as to ordinary affairs and experiences of life. For example, I step into a commercial plane and strap myself in my seat, confident that there is a sufficient and reasonable probability that the plane is safe, that the pilots are trained and competent and that, therefore, I have good reasons to expect a safe trip.

How absurd and unreasonable it would be for me to step into a plane with a checklist to satisfy myself beyond possible doubt of the likely safety of my trip. Was the pilot properly trained? Is he competent? Did he perchance have a drink in the last eight hours which might impair his judgment and reflexes? Has the plane been inspected at regular intervals? Does it carry sufficient fuel for the trip with a reasonable safety margin? One would not have the audacity to ask such questions even where a trip to several thousand miles across the ocean is involved. One might ask, isn't it possible that some important defect was overlooked during the last inspection of the plane or that the pilot did indeed have a drink not too long before he boarded the plane? Of course, it is possible. There may be a hundred such possibilities. The important consideration, however, is that there is a good probability of a safe trip, based on the fact that the airline is a carrier certified by the Government, it has a good safety record, it has been in operation many years, it uses the most modern planes, etc.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote with the purpose of accurately informing men and women of the facts concerning Christ. There is every likelihood that their testimony is true. It would be entirely improper for me to ask, isn't it possible that the evangelists could have made a mistake here and there. We can advance a thousand possibilities. The mind of an unbeliever can be especially fertile in this respect. The point is that the gospel writers' testimony would be accepted in court today simply on the basis that there is sufficient probability that it is true. We could go a step further and say that it would be an insult to

the evangelists to say or infer that they were corrupt wicked men who deliberately wrote their gospels for the purpose of deceiving people.

The answer is "no." Every witness is presumed to be credible in the absence of any circumstances, conditions, or facts which could generate suspicion. For example, let us say I am visiting my home town, Ford du Lac, Wisconsin, and while on a stroll one afternoon I witness a hit-and-run accident. Fortunately, I obtain the license number of the driver, turn it over to the police who arrest the man and place charges against him. At the trial the attorney for the driver objects to my attempt to give my testimony. He says to the judge, "Your honor, I request that Mr. Schuppe's credibility as a witness first be established before he is permitted to testify. After all, our aim here is to establish the truth, and how can we do that unless we first establish Mr. Schuppe's credibility."

Any such objection would be rebuked by the judge. His reply would be, "Mr. Schuppe is presumed to be a credible witness not only before this court but before the world, unless and until evidence is presented to the contrary. Furthermore, it is solely up to you to present contrary evidence, and such evidence cannot be introduced until he has testified." The attorney might object, "But your honor, Mr. Schuppe lives in Arlington, Virginia, some nine hundred miles from here. My client is poor. He cannot afford the expense of an investigation into Mr. Schuppe's credibility." The judge's reply would be, "Whether he lives in Arlington or Siberia is immaterial. The burden of proof to show that he is not a credible witness is entirely up to you."

I find it amazing that we have not extended the same degree of common courtesy to the sacred writers. Believers have taken upon themselves an unnecessary burden of proof. It is not our responsibility to prove that Matthew and the other writers down to John, who wrote Revelation, were credible witnesses. They must be presumed to be reliable, trustworthy witnesses, and their testimony must be received. It is squarely up to any critic to present evidence which would impeach their testimony.

The critic may say, "This is not fair. After all, we cannot go back 1,900 years and determine whether these writers were of such character that their testimony is entirely trustworthy." However, that does not change the rule. In fact, one further point may be added.

The acceptance of the Christian community of these writings through the centuries without the slightest question or suspicion as to their veracity, is additional proof of credibility.

We remark again, how absolutely unfairly New Testament writers have been treated, not only by the critic but even by believers. The critic has presumed that the testimony of New Testament writers is false until proven true. Not only that but they have treated them as though they had jointly conspired to fabricate a set of writings in order to impose a false religion upon the world. Sad to say that the Christian has regarded such criticisms as valid and has unnecessarily assumed the burden of proving that the New Testament writers are credible, and that their writings, therefore, are worthy of acceptance. This is not the believer's job. It should be added that no ancient secular writings are given such shabby treatment. Such a rule is not applied to Josephus' writings. They are accepted without first requiring some outside testimony to support or confirm them.

A. Honesty. The general principle is that in human experience men ordinarily speak the truth when there is no obvious motive or inducement to the contrary. For example, I ask a stranger on the street for directions to a certain address. He seems glad to be of help. He may even bring out a city map to help explain his directions. I presume he is speaking the truth. I have no reason to doubt him. I do not first question him to find out whether he is a Christian and then decide to follow his directions because as a Christian he presumably would be more truthful. He may be mistaken in giving directions, but whether a Christian or not, it would be unreasonable for me to suspect that even a stranger would for no obvious reason seek to mislead me deliberately.

Not only are men ordinarily presumed to speak the truth but in some instances courts will even permit a witness of questionable character or of a criminal background to give testimony. It is expected that such testimony will be weighed by the jury and that at least some of it will be accepted. An admitted criminal may decide to confess everything and to "turn State's evidence" and testify against his associates. He is permitted to testify, the presumption being that his testimony will probably be truthful.

Consider the case of the New Testament writers. With one voice and under the severest persecutions they preached that Christ, Who had been crucified as a malefactor and risen from the dead, was the one and only Savior from sin. They further proclaimed that every religious system in the world in conflict with this gospel was false. They suffered the loss of possessions, homes, and life itself. They were hailed before courts and tribunals and were often given the opportunity to recant, to carefully review the grounds of their faith, and to state that they were wrong. Yet they persisted in their proclamation of the doctrine of Christ. We aver, therefore, that it is absolutely impossible that they would have persisted in affirming the truths they preached, if Christ had not actually risen from the dead, and if they had not known this fact as surely as they knew any other fact. If the doctrine of Christ was a falsehood, it would have been impossible for them to have persisted year after year in proclaiming it, and at the same time to have suffered the pangs of a guilty conscience, accusing and tormenting them by saying over and over again, "You are a liar and you know it."

Further, the apostles were ordinary men, with natures like ours. They were swayed by the same motives, had the same hopes, were affected by the same fears and sorrows, and were subject to impatience, temptations, and infirmities such as we are. They were good men and, therefore, could not have been deceivers. Their writings reflect that they were men of tender consciences. They had a sense of God's presence, a fear of Him, a realization of being accountable to Him as well.

If they were evil men, it is inconceivable that they would have chosen this form of fraud. Conceive, if you can, of appealing to men to repent, to abhor and forsake sin, to practice daily denial of self, to sacrifice, to crucify the flesh and its affections and lusts, to exercise purity of heart, to live in light of a future judgment of God. Bad men simply have no interest in promoting truth or godliness.

The conclusion is inescapable that the New Testament writers were men of absolute honesty and truth, testifying to what they had carefully observed and knew without question to be true.

B. Ability. The ability of a witness to tell the truth depends on the opportunities he has for observing, inquiring, and investigating the facts in a firsthand manner. He must be reasonably competent and capable of discerning the truth, analyzing it, sifting information, and determining pertinent facts. Coupled with this he must have a faithful memory in retaining the truth and accurately recording it.

It is always presumed that men are of sound mind and of average and ordinary intelligence, unless proven otherwise. If this presumption is objected to, the burden of proof rests upon the objector.

If the foregoing is applied to the New Testament writers, we conclude that they were very likely men of above average ability. For example, Matthew, a tax collector, was trained by his profession to make accurate and acute observations to detect fraud and evasion of taxes. He was an IRS man of that day. He was alert to schemes of all kinds to escape payment. Such schemes were practiced day after day. He was undoubtedly capable of "sizing up" men and determining whether they were honest. Luke was a physician and a scientist, a capable, competent man, accustomed to making careful scrutiny and examinations. Peter, James and John were successful businessmen, operating a fishing business. They must have been capable men. Similar evaluations can he made of the other apostles. Though unlearned, they were men of native intelligence, and of good common sense. Paul, who wrote 13 or 14 epistles, was a brilliant scholar whose ability cannot be questioned.

C. Consistency of their testimony. Are the writings of the evangelists consistent with each other? Do they agree? We reply that there are a sufficient number of differences to show that there could not have been any conspiracy or collusion between them to write the same account. Yet at the same time there is sufficient agreement to show that they were independent investigators and narrators of the same great events. Someone has said that while there is no evidence of collusion, neither is there evidence of collision.

But how about the differences and apparent discrepancies in these accounts?

1. Why do miracles, teachings, and events recorded by one writer not appear in the other gospels? The raising of Lazarus, which we would regard as a spectacular miracle, is found only in John's gospel. On the other hand, the feeding of 5,000 men is the one miracle recorded by all four evangelists.

Our answer is that four writers, writing from different vantage points and each writing to a select group of people, would record different events or different aspects of an event. While the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is not recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they do record other people being raised from the dead. Further, the purpose of the gospels is not to give a biography of Christ but only to present limited information and data to support their purpose. John's purpose is to demonstrate that Christ was the Son of God and, therefore, worthy of our faith in Him as Savior. About ninety percent of his material is unique in that it does not occur in the other gospels. It is well to note his comment in 21:25 that if everything Christ did should be written, the world itself could not contain the books that could have been written.

2. What about conflicting accounts of the same miracle or event? People are probably more disturbed by the apparent discrepancies in the gospel narratives. Discrepancies are not to be looked at as disagreements or contradictions. A better phrase would be "unresolved differences." We cannot explain or reconcile some of these differences at the present time, but we must not regard them as divergent or differing accounts.

For example, all four writers describe events which occurred on the resurrection day. Even a quick reading of the four gospels reveals that the gospel writers recorded different facts about the resurrection and the visit of different persons to the tomb. These differences are not contradictions and in no way invalidate the fact of the resurrection. Far greater differences are found in reports of secular writers and historians regarding major events of history, some of them utterly irreconcilable. Yet they do not detract from the credibility of the writers.

We simply know too little to adequately criticize the gospel accounts. Some of the differences in these accounts have been reconciled by further study and some by the findings of archeology regarding customs and practices of the times. Some may never be reconciled until we get to heaven. The important fact is that the gospel writers are in substantial agreement with each other. On no pertinent fact do they disagree.

D. Conformity of their testimony with experience. The critic says that the gospel records are not entitled to full credit because they do not conform with human experience. They report miracles and supernatural events which are not in agreement with human experience. Thus the writers were either deceivers or they themselves were deceived.

We have discussed this objection previously by pointing out that since Christ was the Son of God, miracles would normally and naturally be performed by Him. In fact, the absence of miracles would automatically invalidate Christ's claims to deity.

Note in this respect the statement of John in I John 1:1-3, that these senses were involved in his experiences with Christ. He not only saw but he looked or gazed intently upon them. He heard with his ears. "Our hands handled," undoubtedly referring to the appearance of Christ to the apostles on the first day of His resurrection, such testimony carries great weight.

E. The gospel writings agree with contemporary facts and circumstances. Every event is appropriately related to a larger set of circumstances existing in that day or that period of time. Its origin is due to events which preceded it, to those which occurred at the same time and place and often to events in remote places. Any false stories which men might invent and foist on the public as true would readily be proven as false upon examination at a later date with actual occurrences.

As a postal inspector I found that when the suspect of a crime told his story in vague generalities, it was likely to be false. The theory is that he had to clothe his account with meager and general details because he realized that as more and more facts were disclosed, the true facts would come to light. So his generalities covered his deceit. In contrast, where a large number of details are given in an account, that account can invariably be regarded as truthful and honest. The greater the detail the more assurance there is of its truthfulness.

Another point to consider is this. The testimony of a false witness is rarely uniform. He will likely volunteer copious details regarding an occurrence that cannot be verified. Conversely he will profess to know little or nothing concerning an event which is verifiable by independent testimony or investigation. In contrast, the testimony of a true witness is natural, straight-forward, and unaffected. He is ready to give generous and detailed information of circumstances with no concern whatsoever whether these details can be verified or not. If testimony is false and dishonest, the increased number of witnesses to circumstances together with the increased number of circumstances themselves all tend to increase the probability the deception will be discovered. This is true simply because the number of points in these testimonies are multiplied and, therefore, more easily capable of examination and detection.

The gospel writers contain no "Once upon a time in a far off land, an unnamed hero did so and so." They mention manners, customs, circumstances, events, and conditions with minuteness. For example, Luke 3:1-2 records seven historical facts as to the time of God's call of John the Baptist. Tiberious was emperor of Rome, and it was in his fifteenth year. Pilate was governor of Judea. Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, etc. Similarly, note the detail given in Luke 2:1-2. The frequency of such detail throughout the gospels and their connection with each other are in themselves a strong presumption of truthful statements. If the evangelists had been false historians, they would not have committed themselves to recording so many particulars, which would give an investigator ample opportunities to verify their truthfulness or to detect their falsity.

To illustrate: Christ was tried before Pilate. We know from Tacitus and Josephus that Pilate was governor of Judea. We know that authority to exercise capital punishment had been taken away from the Jews, as recorded by John. Pilate had Jesus scourged, a common practice of the day. Christ was treated with derision, which was also customary. Christ's accusation was written at the top of His cross. Secular writers tell us that this was the practice. The charge was written in three different languages. Josephus tells us it was common in Jerusalem for public advertisements to be written in this manner. Jesus bore His cross before He broke down, a common practice. His body was given to friends for burial, also the general custom of Rome.

The characters portrayed by the gospels are natural and real. Peter is pictured as bold, courageous, and impetuous. He is usually first to speak, often without thinking. He fervently loves his Master. He acts cowardly under pressure and denies Christ. This description of character is uniformly set forth by all four writers. He must be real. He could not be fictitious. Thomas is pictured as the skeptic of the group, the one who questions until fully convinced.

The gospel writers are perfectly indifferent to the reaction which their records will receive by their readers. Of course they want to be believed, but they make no effort to bolster or support the truth with exclamations or affirmations. Normally, truth does not have to be shored up by statements such as, "I am telling you the truth, and I am willing to swear on a stack of Bibles a mile high that this is the truth." Indeed such affirmations might be viewed with skepticism. The evangelists simply relate the facts with little or no added comments. Truth speaks for itself.

This is noteworthy. For example, if I had written the record of Christ's trial, I would probably have added personal observations. What a weak character Pilate displayed in pronouncing Christ innocent three times and yet condemning Him to death. I might have pronounced Herod a scoundrel, devoid of the milk of human kindness in the treatment he gave Christ. However, the narrative of the gospels is given without embellishment or personal, emotional observations. The reader can form his own judgments and conclusions as to the character of both Pilate and Herod. These writers, like true witnesses, have nothing to lose and nothing to gain by stating the bare facts.

It should also be noted that the writers relate various occurrences which embarrass and disparage them. They exhibited a lack of faith in Christ on various occasions. They are dull to understand His teachings. They are proud and vie to be first in the kingdom. They desert Christ in Gethsemane. Peter denies Him three times, even with cursing. These writers have nothing to hide. Their sincerity and determination to tell the truth, regardless how much it hurts, is evident. It is the kind of a record that inspires confidence.

The character they portray, Jesus Christ, is sublime and absolutely peerless. He is sinless, the supremely wise God, manifested in the flesh. He committed no sin. He never made a statement He had to retract. He had no fault or blemish which men can criticize today after 2,000 years of intense scrutiny of His life. His characteristics are perfectly blended to make a comprehensive personality, with no feature or aspect lacking.

We say with Pilate, "Behold the Man," and what a Man He is, for He is the perfect man, God of very God, Who dwelt among men. We ask, could such a character have been created by some Galilean fishermen, with the help of a tax collector, some business men, and a few women? It is inconceivable and taxes the imagination that they could have done so, and further, did so for the purpose of defrauding the world. If they could have originated such a character, they would have been men and women of superlative wisdom, with expertise such as the world has never seen and skilled beyond belief in the art of deception and fraud. We can arrive at only one logical conclusion. They truly stated the astonishing facts which they saw and heard. Thus, we say without any question of doubt, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables" (II Peter 1:16). We believe implicitly the record which honest and godly men, who were eye witnesses of the majesty and glory of Christ, set down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.