Exploring Christianity An interview with N. Simpson, by N. Saadah

Dear Neil - I grew up in a Christian environment at a parochial school, studied the bible and its history and yet, have never quite understood Christianity. I look at you - a devout, educated, kind, caring individual who is eager to share your faith with others and I want to understand more. So I would like to ask you a series of questions on my blog - this will give me and my readers the opportunity to have an intelligent, civil discussion on a subject which is horribly devoid of such discourse. Shall we get started?

First, let me thank you for this unique opportunity. In our world of sound bites and bumper sticker arguments it is so refreshing to be able to just lay out a set of beliefs in the marketplace of ideas and have a serious and respectful dialogue. I have learned a lot from you about how to have graceful and charitable conversations. I know you’ve studied the Bible before, but I’ll try to address your questions as if responding to someone who hasn’t.

First, a little background: I grew up with a terrific set of Christian parents who have always lived out their faith in teaching and in service to others. Other than my college years, I have always gone to church . . . but let’s just say I wasn’t paying real close attention for the first 28 years or so. I was quite the skeptic. I think it is important to note this because I and many others didn’t come to faith through brainwashing from parents, schools or churches. We did so after initially rejecting and rebelling and later examining the evidence for ourselves. That doesn’t make us right, and that isn’t the only way people become followers of Christ. But it does counter the pervasive myth that we always believed these things or that we accepted them blindly. I didn’t become a believer overnight; it was something I wrestled with for a long time.

You asked a profoundly important question. The Bible claims that Jesus is God and that He is the only way to forgiveness of your sins and to eternal life. The Bible claims to speak for God over 2,000 times, so if it isn’t his Word then it has a staggering amount of lies and wouldn’t be worth picking up. That doesn’t mean it is true, just that it matters a great deal if it is true or not.

On to your questions. Here’s the short version: When I examined the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and for the authority of the Bible I found it to be extremely compelling. The Bible has credible authors with eyewitness accounts, claims that were falsifiable, accurate prophecies, complete support from archeological finds, robust copying processes that ensured we know what the originals said and plenty of accurate one-time translations from the original languages to our language. I found solid answers to every difficult passage I cared to investigate. I also noted the positive, dramatic transformations the Bible has had on people and cultures who take it seriously, as well as the tremendous impact it has had in my life.

I found other holy books to be lacking in some way, such as historical mistakes or clear contradictions to what we know to be true. I also found their accumulation processes to be less reliable (i.e., allegedly transmitted to one person over a short period of time). They also contain major differences that can’t be reconciled with the Bible.

To those who haven’t read the Bible, my suggestion is to just dive in. The Gospel of John is a good place to start. Find someone to read it with or join a Bible study. Get a “study Bible” that has explanatory footnotes. Keep asking tough questions. I read it all the way through 10 years ago and it was life changing. At a minimum you will have read the most popular book of all time and will have a better understanding of Christianity.

Follow-up: Let's start with your claim that the Bible is written by "credible authors." If you could prove the credibility of an author who lived thousands of years ago, that would certainly bolster your argument when it came to writing describing Christ's life, for example. However, it does nothing to bolster the veracity of writings which claim to portray God's wishes for us. Since much of the Bible is comprised of these wishes, often revealed to an individual through means not witnessed by anyone else, aren't you essentially taking them at their word? And what of the vast parts of the Bible the author of which is not known - how do you trust an unknown author?

It seems to me that while you can bolster your argument for accurate copying/translation through material evidence, your argument weakens when you regard the testimony of four individuals as true because you deem them trustworthy and completely falls apart when considering portions of the Bible which were simply "inspired" by God. At the end of the day, doesn't your belief in the Bible's veracity come down to faith?

Let me answer your last question first, namely, “Doesn’t your belief in the Bible’s veracity come down to faith?”

The answer is, “Yes,” in the sense of having faith based on confidence and trust. It is faith based on evidence. It isn’t blind faith or, worse yet, faith in spite of evidence. We all have faith in something; the question is what is the most logical and well-supported thing to have faith in?

There are parts of the Bible that have unknown or disputed authorship, but I wouldn’t consider it a vast portion. The credit for authorship may not have been important to pass along on some books, but the early church obviously took them to be inspired and worthy of canonization. There is a great deal of church history outside the Bible, so it isn’t like someone came along later and made up all these names. The early believers took these writings very seriously and carefully copied and shared them with others.

With respect to Moses’ authorship of the first five books of the Bible, here’s an article that deals with both sides of the debate. Here’s the most important part: “But nowhere in the Bible is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. Even if one believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, a case can be made that he authored only parts of the Torah, and that other writers added sections of their own and/or edited the resultant text.”

I’m not sure I completely follow your claim that accurate accounts of Christ’s life wouldn’t necessarily bolster our confidence in the portions that “claim to portray God’s wishes for us.” The Gospels record that He claimed to be God and that He proved He was God by performing countless miracles (including walking on water, raising the dead, healing the blind, curing leprosy, etc.) and rising from the dead just as He predicted. If those accounts are true, then we should take everything He said very seriously. Jesus validated the Old Testament, so we could trust that as well.

So why were these witnesses reliable? In the interest of space I’m going to summarize some points from an article called Matthew and John on the Witness Stand. Matthew and John were two of the Apostles and eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.

The article notes five criteria used in legal circles to determine witness credibility. Do these two meet the criteria?

1. Did the witness make statements on a previous occasion inconsistent with his present testimony?
There is no evidence that Matthew and John ever submitted different testimonies before or after their Gospels were written.

2. Is the witness biased?
Matthew died as a martyr for the faith and John was exiled to an island (basically, a prison) or possibly martyred. If Jesus stayed dead, they had no incentive to claim that He had been raised to life. The same goes for people like Peter, Paul, James, and countless others who died grisly deaths rather than recant their message. This gives them a high degree of authenticity. Some people will die for a lie if they think it is true, but I don’t know anyone who knowingly dies for a lie. People are typically biased to save their hides but not to risk them for a known lie.

3. Is the witness of good character?
I am not aware of a shred of evidence that impugns their character or that they didn’t live their lives as if they really believed Jesus rose from the dead.

4. Was the witness incapable of observing, remembering, or recounting the matters testified about?
“Their writings are clear and lucid with an abundance of detail.” They give no indication that they were invented.

5. Did other witnesses show that material facts are otherwise than as testified to by the witness?
There are no contradictions in their testimonies (or those of other Gospel accounts). If Jesus’ body was still dead, I assure you that the Jewish authorities would have been glad to parade it down the street.

In summary, it is in no way required for us to confirm authorship to a specific individual (I trust directions to appliances even though I don’t know the author), but the Bible has many confirmed authors who are credible witnesses.

Follow-up: It seems your main argument for the bible being the word of God follows these lines:

• The authors of the new testament were reliable sources, so...
• We can trust what they wrote (Christ's life, lessons and wishes)
• According to the new testament, Christ validated the old testament, so…
• We can trust the old testament writings as well.

Most of your rationale as to why we can trust the new testament authors I find, quite frankly, to be a bit weak:

Examples:
- There is no evidence that Matthew and John ever submitted different testimonies before or after their Gospels were written
- “Their writings are clear and lucid with an abundance of detail.” They give no indication that they were invented.
I fail to see how this verifies their claims - a story being told the same way repeatedly does not make it any more true.

- I am not aware of a shred of evidence that impugns their character or that they didn’t live their lives as if they really believed Jesus rose from the dead.
- There are no contradictions in their testimonies (or those of other Gospel accounts).
Nobody is claiming they didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead - believing something doesn’t make it true.  I can find multiple thousands-of-years-old testimonials of plenty of acts I'm quite sure didn't happen (e.g. sorcery, magic, mythology).

- If Jesus’ body was still dead, I assure you that the Jewish authorities would have been glad to parade it down the street.
This assumes: Jesus lived and died as described by the authors - it is based on the assumption we are currently discussing

The only rationale which I could see being effectively used to verify their writings is this one:
Matthew died as a martyr for the faith and John was exiled to an island (basically, a prison) or possibly martyred. If Jesus stayed dead, they had no incentive to claim that He had been raised to life. The same goes for people like Peter, Paul, James, and countless others who died grisly deaths rather than recant their message. This gives them a high degree of authenticity. Some people will die for a lie if they think it is true, but I don’t know anyone who knowingly dies for a lie. People are typically biased to save their hides but not to risk them for a known lie.

In my eyes, this would clearly show that Matthew, John and others worshiped Jesus - it says nothing of whether or not Jesus was right.  After all, history is full of examples of people dying because they believed in madmen.

In short - it seems to me that rather than providing verification of Christ's life, you have provided verification of a handful of authors belief in Christ.  If these authors were telling me how to use my washing machine, I would be satisfied…but I'm not if they are giving me a roadmap for life.  This is what I mean when I say that your belief ultimately comes down to faith - it seems to me at some point, you have to make a fundamental assumption (the writings are true) which is backed up only by circumstantial evidence which I would consider flimsy at best.

Actually, the credibility of the authors (and the specific example of Matthew and John on the Witness Stand) was just one of many arguments.  I only went into more detail on it based on your second set of questions.  The fact that Jesus validated the Old Testament is just one of many interrelated arguments.  I can see why the authorship credibility point is important to you, so I’ll add some more things to consider.

I do think it is important to look at the arguments as a whole.  You are correct that saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it any more true.  I just point out that the accounts are consistent because if they were inconsistent then that would obviously pose a problem. The consistency of the accounts isn’t a stand alone argument, but it is more than just a checklist item.   It does add support to have more than one person attesting to the same event, even if told from a different perspective.  It is pretty standard legal and historical practice that more witnesses give you more confidence in a given position.

Also, consider the incredible accuracy of all the non-miraculous events described: Every single geographic, historical and archeological detail of the Bible has been exhaustively reviewed.  The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (also written by Luke) are incredibly detailed and perfectly accurate.  That alone doesn’t mean the miracles described are true, but it does lend credibility to the writer if he is that precise.

Nobody is claiming they didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead - believing something doesn’t make it true.  I can find multiple thousands-of-years-old testimonials of plenty of acts I'm quite sure didn't happen (e.g. sorcery, magic, mythology).

We agree that they claimed that Jesus rose from the dead.  Yes, you might find ancient accounts of falsehoods.  But it is important to keep in mind that the New Testament writings are unique in that they were written and circulated close to when the events happened.  In other words, they were falsifiable.  Again, if the tomb wasn’t empty, the Jewish leaders could have just paraded his dead body through the streets and disproved the early Christians.  Romans were experts at executions, so it isn’t plausible to think Jesus didn’t die.

This assumes: Jesus lived and died as described by the authors - it is based on the assumption we are currently discussing.

There are non-Christian sources outside the Bible noting that Jesus lived and was crucified.  This link lists several of them. If you are disputing whether an actual person named Jesus lived or not I’ll need to take a step back and cover those sources.  If you are just pointing out that the Gospels have more details of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, then I agree.

In my eyes, this would clearly show that Matthew, John and others worshiped Jesus - it says nothing of whether or not Jesus was right.  After all, history is full of examples of people dying because they believed in madmen.

My main assertion is that if Jesus rose from the dead as He claimed He would then He was most definitely “right.”  I realize you aren’t convinced of the “if” part of the statement; I just want to confirm that if you believed the “if” then you would agree with the “then” part.

Yes, people will die for a madman.  But I can’t think of any examples where countless sane people will die for something they know to be a lie.  Has anyone died for Jim Jones lately?  And if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, the Apostles and the early followers would have certainly known it was a lie.  I think Muslim martyrs are dying for a lie, but they think it is true.  If they knew for a fact that the outcomes they were promised were lies I doubt they would strap on the bombs.

I obviously don’t find the evidence to be flimsy at best, though perhaps I haven’t articulated the evidence very well here.  I guess I would ask why you believe anything you read from any period of history.  I think the legal criteria I listed for credible witnesses is solid reasoning.  We decide the fate of people’s freedom and even life and death matters daily in this country based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

You might want to scan The Impossible Faith, or How Not to Start an Ancient Religion.  It points out just how unlikely it was that the New Testament would have been written, let alone survived.  The Gospel writers revealed embarrassing facts about themselves.  This is not a common way for movements to get started.  They used women as the first witnesses to the resurrection, and in those times women couldn’t even testify in court.  So to me, that adds to their credibility – they told the truth even though it was embarrassing.  Either that, or they were really stupid.

Also, they were preaching a message which held hypocrisy and bearing false witness to be serious sins, so to make up the message themselves would have been doubly hypocritical and deceptive.

These authors also knew that prophets had to be 100% accurate 100% of the time.  Old Testament prophets put their lives on the line every time they claimed to have spoken for God.

I think it helps to step through how the message spread in the early church.  They are the ones who helped determine that the authors were credible.  For example, early church leaders didn’t accept 2 John and 3 John as Scripture until they were convinced that the Apostle John wrote them.  These people weren’t going to change their whole system of religion and risk their lives without asking some questions about the source (just like you!).  I don’t have time or space to cover all of church history, but books didn’t just show up in the Bible.  They were exhaustively reviewed by all kinds of church leaders before including them.

I think an interesting case study would be to look at the Apostle Paul.  I’ll note some highlights from a more exhaustive analysis contained here.  Paul’s story is told three times in the Book of Acts plus in his own letters in the Bible.  He was a legalistic Pharisee (the Jewish ruling party) who was zealous in having Christians jailed and put to death.  He claimed to encounter Jesus on the road to Damascus and became a convert to Christianity.  He is probably the greatest Christian evangelist ever.  This change would be as astounding as if the Grand Wizard of the KKK quit to lead the NAACP.

It is important to note that while the authorship of a few of Paul’s letters are disputed by liberal scholars, there is virtually no dispute that Paul was a real person and that he wrote Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians.  There are many references to Paul outside the Bible.  Paul referred to Mark, Luke and Peter (and probably others) who also wrote Scripture.  Paul’s letters are the earliest books of the New Testament, many of them written within 20 years of the resurrection of Jesus.

You can reconstruct the life of Christ through his letters.  Whether you think he is right about Jesus or not, Paul is undoubtedly a very intelligent man and a clear thinker.

I think it is fair to have a higher standard of accuracy for writings claiming to be about God.  Yet having said all that, I have to ask who you think the authors really were, if not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.?  Do you think independent people made up these coherent stories and got people to follow them without evidence?  Human nature hasn’t changed.  Those people wanted evidence for what they were to place their faith in as well.

This probably won’t help things, but in a sense it doesn’t matter who put pen to paper, because the Bible claims that God is the true author:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1:16-21 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

On a less evidential and more experiential note, I always encourage people to read the Bible for themselves (Nicholas, I know you have read it; I write this to your broader audience).  The Bible promises that you if you are authentically seeking the one true God then you will find him.  Try reading a chapter or two of the Gospel of John (or whatever books of the Bible you like) and truly pray each day for God to reveal himself to you.  I’m starting the Gospel of Matthew on my Bible Study Blog on March 16 if anyone wants to follow along and offer their comments and questions.