The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Molly Worthen is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her BA and PhD from Yale University. 

Lorian Foote, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor of History at Texas A&M, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma.  

This is a transcript of a talk entitled How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection

Note: This has been slightly edited [ums, ahs, you knows, double words deleted] and links and emphasis added. 

Lorian Foote: So what were kind of the key realizations that you had that that started to to make you think that the resurrection was possible and plausible,

Molly Worthen: The book that was most important for me was N.T. Wright's big book on the resurrection although I had to... it is even for a historian it's really a slog.

So I would constantly have to kind of pause and read a chapter that Tim Keller has in his book Reason for God on the resurrection where he sort of summarizes N.T. Wright's whole argument. So I could remind myself of the forest for the trees. That book is a is a very elaborate kind of layer after layer exploration of the views of the resurrection, and the afterlife, both in the Greco-Roman Pagan context in the first century and the spectrum of Jewish views, and he makes clear that whatever Jesus's disciples were hoping would happen, expecting would happen the end of the gospel story and the resurrection appearances are so far outside the cultural lanes, the sort of range of cultural imaginative options, that one has to really take seriously the possibility that they they did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened.

And part of the power of N.T. Wright's book is that, for me, is that it is such a slog and that there's just this cumulative effect of the depth of detail that he explores that I found really compelling. I guess I had in the past accepted what I now think of as fairly lazy analogies between Jesus and other self-declared messiahs**, other stories of gods, you know, descending and rising again to heaven. And once Wright and other scholars s**ubjected these comparisons for me to more scrupulous analysis I was persuaded that they weren't very good comparisons at all and that, the Jesus case is just incredibly strange.

And this drove me into, I think a new relationship with the gospels. I was reading the gospels over and over, you know, and having a reaction, I'm not, I'm still waiting for the mystical experience that I thought I would get, you know, at some point and nothing like that; the closest I have gotten to that is the experience of seeing for the first time the sheer strangeness of the things Jesus does his interactions with people especially the accounts of healing and the strange details, the way every healing is a little bit different. Jesus meets each person on their own terms and as much as I hate, I think I had a real, sort of allergic reaction to that evangelical theme of, "imagine yourself in the scriptures, put yourself in, in the place of these people", I did start to get tugged into the stories a little bit.

I also, I mean, there's a way in which when you spend a lot of time reading primary sources, you just develop a sort of sixth sense for what a source is, what category it belongs in. And I think this is one change that's happened in the New Testament scholarship.

So, you know following, the famous German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann in the early 20th century there was, I think, a move toward talking about the Gospels really in the category of Mythology. But the consensus has shifted and I think this is fair to say even of non-believing historians. That the appropriate genre for them is really more, Greco-Roman biography, but even then if you go and you read Plutarch’s Parallel Lives or you read, say Philistratus's biography of Apollonius of Tiana who was a traveling, Greek sort of magician, healer, who's in the first century sometimes compared to Jesus, the character of those texts, is so different.

So, the character of those texts is they're very polished. They're deeply embroidered, that the authors have a real commitment to careful theme setting. There is a brutal roughness to the Gospels. Especially Mark. Mark, I'd always kind of dismissed Mark because, like, the short one was sort of boring, least theological, Mark was the one that wrestled me to the ground and it is the grittiness, the sense that this is not, honestly, it is not a great work of literature, it is a desperate author, just trying to get on paper this bananas stuff, that this author was much closer to, than I had realized. And I became persuaded by the work of people ike Richard Bauckham was another one of these Anglicans, who can kind of speak to secular American snobs, that it's not that we need to distinguish between some sort of vague idea of oral tradition passing from community, to community and getting garbled along the way and oral history. And that there are, there are clues in the text that create a, not an airtight, but an awfully interesting and persuasive case that the Gospel authors were quite close to the events they were describing and, and possibly should be dated earlier than I had kind of come to believe. And so all of that, I mean, this was so imoprtant, I did not have to treat the Gospels as inerrant. All I had to start to do was to treat them with the same methods and the same kind of respect and questions as I would treat other historical sources. But for that to be possible, for me, they had to be sort of de-familiarized.

Lorian Foote: Interesting. Yeah, you know it's as a professional historian what you described is, how I feel about the Gospels. Because when I bring the techniques that we have in our profession to them, you know, I was telling Molly earlier, it drives me crazy. When I just hear somebody casually say, "well there's so many things that don't exactly match across the four Gospels. And so that's why it shows that that didn't really happen" and I'm like, okay. So then clearly we don't know that anything in history happened because as historians we know, when there's accounts of events....

So like I'm a civil war historian, there is not a single newspaper article and a single eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg that agree on the details of what happened at the battle. None of us questioned the battle we have to piece together a rough estimation of what we think happened based on accounts that don't add up.

And so to me I think as a historian I came to some things on my own that scholars, who are much better than me at the New Testament, come to do as part of their apologetics. But it was just striking to me that, in one gospel that there's two thieves are both making both making fun of Jesus and another gospel, one of them eventually turns to him, and that's what I witnessed. They both have on either side of Jesus, different witnesses are remembering different things that they saw that to me, made it more plausible and made it read as you said more like a true attempt to write a biography than a formalized document and and little things like the gospels record that women were first there.

And that women are there and women are the key eyewitnesses in a culture that discounts the testimony of women. As a historian when I would read a document like that, I would say, okay now, wait a minute, why are they having, if they're wanting to convince people of something that isn't true, would they put these witnesses, as their first class. Look, these women were the witnesses, so just lots of questions, the way that I methodologically go through and ask questions of the source. If I do the same thing to the gospels, I've always found them to be very compelling as historical documents

Molly Worthen: And the women, their role is one part of the broader absolute humiliating scandal of the whole end of the gospels. And this is what N.T. Wright's picture of Jewish theology and culture, really drove home to me in a way that I just had not assimilated before that no other movement that had believed in a self-declared Messiah had then seen that Messiah killed and declared him God. I mean, you could run away, right? Because the whole idea of the role of the Messiah in Jewish thought, was that this would be the individual who would lead Israel to worldly victory, and then Resurrection would kind of follow in the in for everybody, in the context of that victory.

And so I think this helped me see how I thought as a historian, it always been really an important part of my self-understanding that I approached people in the past with respect and a sense of humility.

But I think that there was a way in which that first task, that we're called to as historians to just really respect the chasm between them and me. It can easily slide into a kind of condescension. Because you you forget, you in your quest to distance yourself from your subjects, you can dehumanize them a little bit and maybe reduce the complexity of their worldviews.

So worldviews in the first century were, of course, very different from ours, but no less complicated. And so there were clear ideas for these people about what was and was not possible. And they were not, they were not fools. Who would just sort of believe any crazy thing, They were clear on on dead people, remaining dead, right?

And I think I had just not fully grappled with the radicalism of the Gospel claims in the first century, forget about now for me, the big hurdle and I think this is true of many scholars who spend their careers on this subject. If you don't already allow for the possibility of an open universe. If you are committed to an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality than any possible explanation of the empty tomb and Jesus's appearances to his followers is preferable to the Christian explanation, no matter how Baroque and elaborate and I had to come to grips with my own deep anti-super-naturalist bias, I could always sort of thought of myself as open to the claims of Christianity.

But I had just, mean, my whole existence was in this one epistemological groove and this one kind of lane of approach and there are good reasons why in the modern research university in a secular university certain questions are just ones we set aside and we focus on other questions. But there's a way in which in doing that one can just get so used to setting aside those questions that you forget about the presuppositions that are involved in ruling those questions out and you can begin to think in the subconscious way that those questions are just foolish questions. Because your tools that you use in your teaching and research are not aimed directly at them.

I think also, I had a kind of "all or nothing" view of the historical method. If we define the historical method as drawing our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past.

And we Define a miracle as Divine intervention Interruption In the normal order, normal relationship between cause and effect. Then yes, it's true that at the sort of Singularity of the miracle, the historical, method fails. So you can't prove as you couldn't a lab or or even you know, to the extent that that historians can prove things, you can't prove the resurrection.

However, there's all sorts of context. And you can bring the historical method to bear and all kinds of really fruitful ways to the textual record, the archaeological record. You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And if you're willing to suspend your disbelief in the Supernatural, then then you can be, you can begin to investigate the historical context of Christians claims about the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ that then get you to the point where you are, you're still faced with a leap of faith, but it's no longer a wild leap in the dark; it's a well-researched, reasonable leap. And then you start to realize that you were always making a bit of a leap and you just weren't acknowledging it. This was from true for me, anyway, that I had paid, I think lip service to the idea that, yes, as a secular agnostic person I had unproofable presuppositions because we all do, no view from nowhere blah, blah, blah.

But I had never. I'd never truly like looked that in the face and and and wrestled with it.

[End of Talk]

Key take aways:

1) If we treat the Gospels as we do other ancient documents they are clearly historical and reliable.

2) Accounts that "don't add up" are common in historical documents

3) In the first century people were not fools and knew that dead people stayed dead. so to conclude, even from the evidence, that Jesus rose was radical.

4) It's only a bias for an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality that is the stumbling block for accepting the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historocal fact.

Two agreed upon historical facts

1) We know that Jesus died a torturous death by crucifixion; this is attested to in every gospel, but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. - Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

2) The empty tomb. Something happened to the body. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body, bring it to downtown Jerusalem and dump it on the street. Especially after His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is ezpecially true since the Jewish authorities asked the Romans to guard the tomb. 

The alternative explanations...

The Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. A nearly dead man, in need of serious medical attention, could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, and that he was a conqueror of death and the grave.

Second, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and knew everything about the torture and crucifixion of people, making this theory highly improbable.

Third, are we to think that the Jewish and Roman authorities sealed and guarded the tomb without verifying the Jesus was dead in it? Another highly improbable assumption.

The disciples stole the body - this was the charge by Jewish authorities; Jesus’ followers stole the body unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances.

First, this theory does not explain why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb - the were not considered to be reliable witnesses. This is not the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain how the disciples actually stole the body that was 1) sealed by a heavy stone, and 2) guarded by Romans.

Third, there was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.” [Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, p372.]

Fourth, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul, a devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. source  This gave the disciple little time to come up with a "steal the body" plot, especially given their emotional state. 

The disciples experienced hallucinations.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances. In fact, this is the unanimous agreement of the Gospels.

Second, hallucinations are private experiences as opposed to group experiences. Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, why the Roman and Jewish authorities didn't produce the body, and the conversions of skeptics like Paul

The only real obstacle to resurrection as a plausible explanation is an anti-supernatural bias. But as I've argued the belief that nature is all that exists is logically self-refuting and thus cannot be true if reason, critical thinking, and knowledge are part of our reality

Objection A - Right in that last bit she says that "you can't prove the resurrection"!

Reply: That is in the context of the historical method which, like the scientific method, assumes an unproofable presupposition, i.e. an anti-super-naturalist bias. So please provide your proof or argument that "physical only view of the reality" is correct.

We have good reasons to think that "physical only view of the reality" is logically incoherent

I have had many atheists and critics say that they do not ascribe to a "physical only view of the reality"; so what then given the above is the issue with the conclusion that the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact?

Objection B - If we treat the Gospels as we treat every other historical document, then we could never conclude that an actual resurrection occurred as a historical event.

This is the thing that Christian apologists are never honest about: historians, scholars, and us skeptics and atheists don't accept the resurrection story not because we aren't giving it a fair chance; it's because WE are the ones treating the Gospels the exact same as every other historical text that exists.

Reply: Yes, you are using the same anti-supernatural bias that you look at everything. But that lens is faulty. Thus, I am under no obligation to view reality through your faulty lens especially when this unsupported assumption that has been pointed out time and again, with no defense ever offered for it.  This is even touched on in the OP

Objection C - Why is the "best explanation" here something that we know to be impossible and not "people lied?"

Reply: First it’s only "impossible" if one assumes PN, but we have good reasons to think that is a false idea. Secondly, it's not part of the historical method to assume that the writer of a document lied or the poeple quoted in the text lied; that would have to be proven.

Objection D They got the wrong tomb. Josephus said he buried the body and didn't.

Reply: Are we to believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities, the latter posting a gaurd at behest of the former, wouldn't have checked to see that the body was there prior?

Objection E - You need to reproduce your proof

Reply: We do not prove historical events by reprodcuing them. Do we prove World War 2 by "reproducing" the proof? No. 

The Early Dating of the New Testament

Background: Who was the author of Acts?

Evidence for the author of Luke also being the author of Acts is found in the well-known “we” passages of the latter half of the book (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1—28:16). These passages show that the narrator of Acts accompanied Paul from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi on the continent of Europe, returning with him to Troas. Later he and Paul traveled from Palestine to Rome. 

The author was probably an educated Gentile, as attested by the style and the high level of Greek used in Luke and Acts. His Greek is sometimes fully classical (Luke 1:1-4). 

The author’s methodical approach to writing and his interest in research reveal an educated, highly trained man. It appears from Col. 4:14 that Paul was with “Luke the beloved physician.” In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars drew attention to the medical terminology found in Luke and Acts and to the author’s interest in diseases (Luke 4:38; 8:43-44; Acts 3:7; 12:23; 13:11; 20:7-11; 28:3,8). Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 are both addressed to Theophilus.

Thus it is reasonable to think that Luke the physician was the author of both Luke and Acts. 

The Argument for an Early Date for Acts 

If most of the NT texts were early, then that ties in with other evidence [see
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony] that the gospels are based on eye-witness testimony, and so their sense of authenticity is a product of their essential reliability, and not merely a narrative device. 

Whoever wrote Luke also wrote Acts, since Acts is the sequel to Luke, then this must mean that Luke predates Acts. And if Mark predates both Luke and Matthew, then this would date Mark even earlier. Hence, if we can date Acts early, then we can date Luke earlier, and we get the date for Mark.

Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:

Point 1 There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. Josephus states that the Roman army killed 1.1 million Jews, and they took 200,000 captive as slaves.  This period was an absolute nightmare. And yet, Luke didn’t write a word about it in the book of Acts?!?!? To put this in perspective, this would be similar to a reporter failing to mention World War II, while he was on assignment in Paris in the 1940s.

Point 2 There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.

Point 3 There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. Acts 28 ends with Paul under house arrest. While waiting to appear before Caesar, he is free to preach to all who come to him. This had to occur before A.D. 64, when a great fire swept through Rome and the Emperor Nero said that Christians were to blame. 

Nero began a horrific persecution of Christians after the great fire in Rome, crucifying Christians and burning them alive by the thousands. But yet again, Luke didn’t mention a word about this in his book. Luke recorded other persecutions (Acts 8:1; 11:19), but he didn’t mention this one, which was one of the worst of its kind. Indeed, a late date for Acts seems utterly out of character with Luke’s picture of the Romans being so friendly and positive to Christianity, which would make no sense after Nero’s campaign. 

However, near the end of Acts, Luke portrays the Roman government as benevolent toward Christianity, an attitude that changed after A.D. 64

Point 4 There is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James [at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths.  Paul’s death, which appeared to be imminent in 2 Tim. 4 and which occurred about A.D. 68.

Point 5 The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. Acts emphasizes the legal protection of Christianity under Judaism. Before the Jewish War (AD 66), Judaism was a legal religion. But after? The Romans revoked these privileges. Why then does Acts spill so much ink to demonstrate that Christianity is a legal religion like Judaism (see Acts 18-28), if it was written after Judaism had lost this protection in AD 66 as a result of the Jewish War?

Point 6 The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.

Point 7 The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time, a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.

Point 8 The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Acts presents theological disputes that would only be issues before AD 70. For instance, Acts 15 centers on whether Gentiles should be circumcised. But after AD 70, most Jewish Christians were sadly gone, and Gentile-centered Christianity grew exponentially. Indeed, the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70.

Point 9 Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.

Point 10 The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.

Why did Luke fail to mention all of these 66-70 A.D. cataclysmic events? The answer is surely obvious: since we should expect to read about these events, but we do not strongly suggests that the better explanation is that Luke finished the Book of Acts before any of these events occurred.

Point 11 Certain vocabulary points to an early date. This vocabulary includes:

1) “disciple”; “the first day of the week” (later to become “the Lord’s Day,” Rev. 1:10);

2) a reference to “the people of Israel” in 4:27 (a term later to include both Jews and Gentiles; Titus 2:14);

3) the early title “Son of Man” (7:56);

4) as well as a close similarity in Luke and Acts: worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles, interest in woman, apologetic tendency

5) Many facts about the “political, geographical, and social fields,” “nomenclature,” “titles of officials,” and “Roman citizenship” indicate that the work was written not long after the events occurred

Objection A: How do we even know that Luke finished Acts? Maybe he wanted to write a third volume because it got too long.

Reply: This is a possibility; but it would also mean that ALL of the Gospel had the same intent since NONE of them mention fall of Jerusalem in 70 - the most cataclysmic event of thier time.  

But Luke did mention the Temple - Luke 21:5-6 - And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

If Luke was writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event? In fact, all three Gospels refer to the Temple destruction as a future event. If they were writing after this event, why say, "the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" when it was a past event?

Even if Luke was going to write a third volume, referring to a past event as "the days will come", make no sense - it makes more sense if the event hadn't happened

Back to the argument: 

Thus, if Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [Luke 1:1-4]

Luke states that he took much of his materials from earlier sources (Lk. 1:2). And whenever Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is mentioned in the same context (Phile. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11). This seems to be strong evidence that Mark’s gospel predated Luke’s gospel. Thus, if Luke dates to the late 50s AD, then we should we date Mark earlier

Objection B: Critics argue that we cannot possibly date the Gospels before AD 70, because there was no way that Jesus could have made such predictions.

Reply 1 - This is a philosophical objection—not a historical one. If God exists and Jesus was who he claimed to be, then predicting these events four decades in advance would not be difficult. Critics could be right that God doesn’t exist, but do they ever offer good evidence for this claim? We have reasons to think that a physical only model of the world is false, that the universe was fined tuned, that life was designed

Reply 2 Luke records the fulfillment of Agabus’ prediction of a famine under Emperor Claudius (Acts 11:28), but he never mentions the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the Temple?!?!? Why would Luke record the fulfillment of some no-name, lost to history prophet but neglect mentioning on of Jesus’ most famous predictions? What is a better explanation than it hadn't occurred yet?

Reply 3 Jesus told his disciples to “pray that it may not happen in the winter” (Mk. 13:18). However, Titus destroyed the Temple in the summer (July/August AD 70; Mishnah Taanith 4.6). Likewise, Jesus told his disciples to “flee to the mountains” (Lk. 21:21). Yet, historically, Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that the Christians didn't follow that advise and fled to Pella, which is topically lower than Jerusalem.

Critics will have to do better than simply make assertion about the impossibilities or implausibilities of prophecy.

Objection C:   "...if you look at the themes of Acts, the ending makes perfect sense. One of the central themes of Luke-Acts is that the gospel first goes to the Jews who reject it and after that it goes to the gentiles. We find this very explicitly in Acts 13:46:....We also find it in other places, such as Acts 18:6:...This theme is also reflected in the overall structure of Acts. It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles. Acts 28:28-31 is a completely natural ending to this theme." -  It starts with the disciples preaching in Jerusalem, the city of the Jews, and it ends with Paul preaching in Rome, the city of the gentiles.

Reply: I would say that Acts has three main themes that are related: the Holy Spirit, the Great Commission, and the Church. The Holy Spirit gives power to the Great Commission, which is Jesus' command for followers to share the Gospel message with others worldwide. The Church is the result of the Holy Spirit empowering followers of Jesus to accomplish the Great Commission. The overall theme of the book is the growth of the early church.

But why would your objection mean that Luke wrote late? He could have written late [or early] and decided to end there. So, your "theme of Acts" objection seems decidedly inconclusive.

If Luke, the historian, is writing post 70 A.D. but then fails to record the death of Peter and Paul, the two main subject of Acts? That would seem to be a better stopping point: These two men gave their lives for the spreading of the Gospel. Not to mention, the War of 66, persecution of Nero/Rome, the fall of Jerusalem, and the million killed and thousands enslaved.

The fact that none of the Gospel writers didn't record their deaths seems to be better explained by the fact that they wrote early.

Objection D: Christopher Zeichmann argues that Mark 12 is a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus - Video link

The Passage: 13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances,[a] but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius[b] and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him. [Mark 12:13-17]

The Reply: 

First, κῆνσος is a general term for tax. It covers all taxes, not just poll taxes. And the passage is clearly not about any specific tax but the general principle of whether it was a sin to pay taxes. There were examples of these types of taxes throughout the history of Roman administration well before AD 70:

κῆνσος, “tax,” is a Latin loanword (census) that was used in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew (cf. קְנָס qĕnās, DJPA, 497–98). Matthew follows Mark in using κῆνσος, but Luke uses φόρος, “tribute,” in his parallel account (20:22) and uses it again in L material where Jesus is accused of forbidding the Jewish people to pay tribute (23:2). On κῆνσος in the papyri, see BAG, 431, and MM, 343. The full meaning is enrollment (ἀπογράφειν) of names and assessment of property for the purpose of levying taxes (Luke 2:1–5); the word census or κῆνσος alone can mean “tax.” On hatred of taxes in the Herodian period, see Josephus, Ant. 17.11.2 §308. Following the removal of Archelaus in 6 C.E., Judas the Galilean urged Jews not to pay Roman tribute and incited a revolt (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.8.1 §118; Ant. 20.5.2 §102). An event such as this and the passions it had aroused would still have been felt twenty-five years later when Jesus was asked about his opinion on whether to pay taxes to Caesar. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

The subject of whether one should pay taxes was widely debated in Jesus' time, with many Pharisees believing it was a sin and Herodians believing it wasn't. This was a pre-AD 70 debate as no one would have it in the context of open war and Herodians ended as a viable political force within Palestine after AD 70 -- The last ruler of Herod survived until AD 92, but they were completely discredited after AD 70 and would not debate with Pharisees after that point as no Pharisee would associate with them. 

The Pharisees and the Herodians held to very different views on this controversial subject. The Herodians (Ἡρῳδιανοί, from Latin Herodiani, meaning supporters of the Herodian rulers) believed that it was appropriate for Jews to pay taxes to Rome directly (as in Judea in the time of Jesus) or indirectly through the Herodian client-rulers (as in Galilee and Gaulanitis). The Pharisees, or at least those who approached Jesus, probably viewed the payment of taxes to Rome as idolatry. At least some Pharisees took this view (and some perhaps did not, if the rabbinic literature is any guide; cf. b. Pesaḥ. 112b; b. B. Qam. 113a). One should remember that Saddok the Pharisee was among the followers of Judas of Galilee (or Gaulanitis) at the time that he refused to pay taxes to Rome (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1.1 §§1–10; J.W. 2.8.1 §§117–18).  Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary 

So how can Zeichman misread the passage in such an obvious way? Because he is an expert on coinage and he ignores what the passage is about -- the raging debate between the Pharisees and the Herodians as to whether it was a sin to pay taxes, which firmly dates it pre-AD 70 -- and obsesses over the mention of "denarius", as that is his area of study. Moreover it doesn't appear that Zeichman knew about the various tax revolts that happened pre AD 70 and so he thinks that there was no κῆνσος levied even though we have clear examples of it being levied. His research confirmed a large increase in denarii after the first Roman war - as Rome gave coinage to its soldiers and workers and thus after any building project or military presence the region would have more coins. From this simple observation, Zeichman concludes that Mark was probably written after AD 70, even though denarii were present in Palestine and circulated at the time of Christ (and well before), but in smaller numbers than after AD 70. The misleading argument that this must have been a poll tax that was payable only with a denarius is simply not present in this passage, which discusses the principle of paying tribute (which we know was being paid), using an example denarius (that we know was in circulation) to illustrate a point that money is the creation of the state but that man is God's creation, and each should be given their due, thus resolving the religious debate about whether paying taxes was a sin.

Objection E: The author of Luke-Acts used the works of Josephus.

Reply: My first thought is, why assume that Luke used Josephus instead of Josephus using Luke?

Furthermore, Steve Mason [a major proponent of the "Luke borrowed from Josephus" theory] begins his chapter on Josephus and Luke-Acts by acknowledging, regarding the notions that Luke borrowed from Josephus or that Josephus borrowed from Luke, "Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events." (Josephus and the New Testament, p. 251)

But after reviewing the breadth of events mentioned in both Josephus and Luke, and noting that no other writings from the first century even come close to covering all these events, Mason concludes, "I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus' work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless, further study may provide alternatives." (p. 293) [though he gives no reasons for his "Luke borrowed from Josephus" conclusion] Mason also concedes that the dating is a bit tricky, since most scholars consider Luke-Acts to have been written before Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews.

Objection F: The author of Acts was probably not Luke, and obtained his information about the revolutionaries, Theudas and Judas (5:36,37) from the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.4-10 and 20.97-98), who wrote during the latter half of the first century. 

And Luke made use of Josephus’s account of the death of Herod Agrippa I in A.D. 44 (12:19-22), since both use similar words in describing the event.

Reply: But the Theudas mentioned in Acts may have been one of many revolutionaries who arose about the time Herod the Great died, and not the later Theudas mentioned by Josephus. Luke’s knowledge of Judas was not necessarily derived from Josephus, any more than Josephus’s knowledge was derived from Luke. 

The two accounts of the death of Herod Agrippa differ considerably. Given that both were historians it is not unreasonable that they would record Herod's death and differed since they used different sources

Objection G: Eric Eve argues Mark references Flavian propaganda and can only be written in 69 CE at the earliest. The healing of the blind man with spit (Mark 8:22-25), and the healing of a man with a withered hand in Mark 3:1-5, Eve argues that the Vespasian story originated in 69 CE as part of pro-Flavian propaganda. This has implications on the date of Mark as written sometime after the summer of 69 A.D. and must then have been written after that

Reply: This is similar to objection E; but why assume that Mark was responding to Flavian propaganda? It could just as easily the Flavian propagandists used Mark's work to dress up and give credance to their Vespasian story

The rest of the NT dates:

Paul makes allusions to the gospels and even cites them verbatim at times. Since we can date Paul’s letters fairly accurately, this gives further evidence for an early date of the Gospels. At the very minimum, this means that Paul had access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus early on. However, we would argue that this implies that the gospels were already in circulation.

The following is based on D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s Introduction to the New Testament; based on the text of that book.

James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council) - the terminology of Jas 2:14–26 is at apparent variance with Paul (compare to Rom 3:21–26) If the letter were written after the conference, when Paul’s terminology and meaning would certainly be known to James, then Jas 2:14–26 would seem to be an intentional repudiation of Paul. If the letter comes before the conference, though, it is reasonable to suggest that Paul and James happened to use the same language [with different meaning] independently, without any attempt to contradict each other.

James clearly has a setting in the land of Israel. The term “former and latter rain” (3:7) addresses a weather concern unique to Israel and regions closely adjacent. James is the only book in the Bible outside of the gospels to use “gehenna” for “hell”. Gehenna was a valley outside Jerusalem where trash was burned. Verses like 3:11-12 fit with Israeli geography and farming culture.

Abraham is described as “our father” (2:21), yhe book has no mention of any gentiles. Likewise, there is no mention of any of the issues associated with gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians, etc.

Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council) - Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem Council, and the omission is telling. Paul is extremely emotional in Galatians in his opposition to the "Judaizers", Jewish Christians who followed him to Galatia and had been teaching the gentile believers there that they needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses. Paul was adamently opposed to that idea, and it was this controversy that led to the Jerusalem Council of 50 A.D., [Acts 15]

It seems likely that Galatians was written just prior to the Jerusalem Council, when the controversy over gentile believers was white hot. If it was penned afterward, Paul would have appealed to the authority of the council's decision that favored him.

1 Thessalonians: 50 - Paul mentions going to Athens alone but leaving Timothy behind (1 Thess 3:1-3). This event occurred in Acts 17:14-15. By the time Thessalonians was written, Timothy had returned to Paul (1 Thess 1:1; 1 Thess 3:6). Therefore, the earliest that it could be written would be in Acts 18:5 when Timothy returns to Paul.

2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51 due to the same names mentioned in 2 Thess 1:1.

1 Corinthians: probably early in 55 - the Gallio Stone dates the beginning of Gallio’s office in Corinth to the early summer of AD 51. This serves as a timestamp, dating 1 Corinthians sometime in the mid-fifties AD.

When Paul refers to “the Lord,” he is referring to the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; 4:5; 7:12; 7:25; 9:5). Jesus, of course, spoke about the subject of divorce in a number of places in the Gospels (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18). This seems to be a strong allusion to the notion that Paul has a copy of at least one of the Gospels. Otherwise, how could he claim to know Jesus’ stance on divorce? This is especially true in light of verse 12, where Paul says he doesn't know Jesus’ views on unbelieving spouses.

2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians??) written shortly after 1 Corinthians based on the mention of forgiving the repentant brother that was rebuked in 1 Corinthians (2 Cor 2:6-7). However, some time had passed, because Paul had left Ephesus and was then writing from Macedonia (2 Cor 7:5, 2 Cor 9:4; cf. Acts 20:1). A question arises from the presence of Timothy in 2 Cor 1:1 that could place this epistle at even a later date on a subsequent trip to Macedonia.

Romans: 57 - Romans is most certainly written from Corinth (Cenchrea) evidenced by Paul staying with Gaius in his house, along with the presence of Erastus and Phebe (Rom 16:1, 23). Also the same company of people found in Romans 16:21 is also found in Acts 20:4 when Paul was leaving Greece to return to Jerusalem (also mentioned in Romans 15:25-26).

Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome) Though Paul was in prison many times, his mention of “the palace” (Phil 1:13), and greetings from “Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:22) fit nicely with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome upon his appeal to Caesar (Acts 28:16, Acts 28:30).

Mark: sometime in the late 50s to the early 60s - Due to the evidence listed above for the date of Acts (~AD 62) In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that “Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord” (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark “handed down” his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely disseminated his gospel after their deaths.

Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s - Philemon must precede, if only shortly, Colossians since it is in Philemon that Onesimus is saved while in bonds with Paul (Phm 1:10).

Colossians: early 60s, probably 61 - Philemon and Colossians are linked in time primarily because the same companions with Paul are mentioned in both epistles, which would mean Tychicus traveled with Onesimus with both epistles to Colosse (Col 4:7).

Ephesians: the early 60s - There is not much information to date Ephesians, except that Tychicus delivered the letter (Eph 6:21). For this reason alone, it is assumed Ephesians was written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, although Tychicus may have traveled to Ephesus multiple times (2 Tim 4:12).

1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63 - Knowledge of Peter’s death would have been known to the letter’s recipients. Therefore, even if 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, it is difficult to see how it could have been passed off as from Peter if it was written after the apostle’s death around AD 65.

Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s - The apostle Paul wrote this letter to his coworker Titus. The letter was probably written in the mid-60s A.D. between Paul’s first imprisonment (Acts 28) and his second imprisonment, which is not mentioned in Acts.

1 Timothy: early to mid-60s - Paul probably wrote this letter to Timothy in the mid-60s A.D., during a mission trip not recorded in Scripture. This trip took place after the events described in Acts, between Paul’s first and final Roman imprisonments.

2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)

2 Peter: likely shortly before 65

Acts: mid-60s - based on the evidence listed above

Jude: middle-to-late 60s - due to the letter’s apparent Jewish perspective, Jude’s audience was probably Jewish Christians, or a mixture of Jewish and Gentile readers where the Gentiles were familiar with Jewish traditions.

Luke: mid or late 60s - based on the evidence listed above

Hebrews: before 70 Hebrews reads as a book written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Heb 5:1-4 says “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.” This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be not be possible after 70 A.D after the Temple was destoyed

Matthew: not long before 70 - In Matthew 22:23, we read the present tense to describe the Sadduccees (“[those] who say there is no resurrection”). Those who date Matthew after AD 70 will have difficulty with this passage, because the Sadducees virtually disappeared after the Jewish Revolt (AD 66) and the Destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). (see also Acts 23:8)

John: 80–85 - D.A. Carson holds to a tentative date of AD 80 to 85—though he states that any date from AD 55 to 95 is possible. Other scholars date the gospel to the second half of the first century (AD 50-100).

1 John: early 90s

2 John: early 90s

3 John: early 90s

Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)

The standard later dates could very well be true, and surely many Christian scholars hold to these dates. It’s also good to remember that even if we accept these later dates, the Gospels were still written far earlier than other ancient biographies. For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history.

Early dating is important for several reasons. 

First, since the gospels were written within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, it is very likely they recorded a firsthand account of Christ’s life. 

Second, the closer in date to the event, the more accurate the record. Early dating indicates that eyewitnesses were alive and able to attest to the accuracy of the newly circulating gospels. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Acts 2:22, Acts 26:26). 

Third, the time period between the events and their written record is too short for myths to proliferate. The reason for this is that there needs to be sufficient time for the eyewitnesses to pass from the scene, otherwise they would be able to object to any changes 

Fourth, with the brief time period from Jesus’ ministry to the writing of the first gospel of Mark, there seems even less of a possibility that a “Q” document exists. Q is a hypothetical document from which many scholars believe Matthew and Luke derive the material for their gospels.

That the Gospels were written within one generation of Jesus’ death in A.D. 30, while eyewitnesses of his ministry were still alive, and by those who were either close companions of Jesus or close associates of those companions. Luke 1:1-4 suggests a careful, historical process of composition, and the overall genre of the Synoptics most closely resembles ancient biographies rather than novels or works of fiction.

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Defeating?

Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that translates to "by Scripture alone". It is a Christian theological doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. This doctrine is held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions

1) The doctrine of sola scriptura need not be taught formally and explicitly. It may be implicit in Scripture and inferred logically. Scripture explicitly states its inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and its sufficiency is implied there as well. This passage contains the essence of sola scriptura, revealing that Scripture is able to make a person wise unto salvation. And it includes the inherent ability to make a person complete in belief and practice.

2) Scripture has no authoritative peer. While the apostle Paul’s reference in verse 16—to Scripture being “God-breathed”—specifically applies to the Old Testament, the apostles viewed the New Testament as having the same inspiration and authority (1 Tim. 5:18; Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7; 2 Pet. 3:16). The New Testament writers continue, mentioning no other apostolic authority on par with Scripture. The New Testament writers directed Christians to test their teachings by remembering the words of the prophets and apostles, not by accessing the words of living prophets, apostles, or other supposedly inspired teachers (Heb. 2:2-4; 2 Pet. 2:1; 3:2; Jude 3-4, 17).” 

3) Scriptural warnings such as “do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6) and prohibitions against adding or subtracting text (Rev. 22:18-19) buttress the principle that Scripture stands unique and sufficient in its authority.

4) Christ held Scripture in highest esteem. The strongest scriptural argument for sola scriptura, however, is found in how the Lord Jesus Christ himself viewed and used Scripture. A careful study of the Gospels reveals that he held Scripture in the highest regard. Jesus said: “The Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35); “Your word is truth” (John 17:17); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law” (Matt. 5:18); and “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17).

5) Christ appealed to Scripture as a final authority. Jesus even asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19) while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (Luke 16:29-31; John 5:45-47). He used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every theological and moral matter under dispute. When disputing with the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, he proclaimed: “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:13).

Conclusion: Because Scripture came from God, Jesus considered it binding and supreme, while tradition was clearly discretionary and subordinate. Whether tradition was acceptable or not depended on God’s written Word. This recognition by Christ of God’s Word as the supreme authority supplies powerful evidence for the principle of sola scriptura. 

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

Au Contraire-- The Christian faith is rather stern in its insistence on proof, evidence, truth, examination...and correspondingly contemptuous of those who believe nonsense.

Consider briefly the following passages in the Bible:

Gen 15 - When Abraham asked God "how will I know that this future will happen?", God did not rebuke him, but made a legal covenant with him. 

Exodus 33 - Moses argued with God that God should not destroy Israel, so that there would be evidence of His work in history

Numbers 16 - Moses argued with the Israelites over the leadership issue, and appealed to evidence.

Deut 18 - God is VERY explicit-if a prophet EVER misses a prediction, this proves he is not a prophet of YHWH. The test was evidential--pure and simple.

Deut 29 - Moses appeals to their MEMORIES as a basis for decision...historical events .

Joshua 3 - Joshua sets up, in advance, a criterion for knowing that YHWH was among them--a future, visible, abnormal event in Israel's history.

2 Sam 1 - David wanted factual support for the report that Saul was dead.

Lam 3–We are to EXAMINE our lifestyles - looking for evidence that reveals our true character and orientation to ultimate issues

I Cor 11–We are to examine our hearts and conduct--testing them against standards

2 Cor 13–We are to examine our life vis-a-vis the content of the worldview

Judges 6 - Gideon and the 'fleece test' - and yet God 'humored' his weakness and provided the evidence he needed

Isaiah 7 - King AHAZ was rebuked by the prophet for NOT asking God for evidence!

Dan 1 - Daniel, in a foreign situation, didn't appeal with a simple 'trust us'--he said 'test us'...and depended upon God for concrete, visible results.

Mal 3 - God challenges Israel to test His faithfulness, He invites them to test His commitment to His promises...and in the area of finances!

Rom 12 - Paul challenges his readers to continually expand their thinking--SO THAT they can examine and prove what God's will for their direction is...an active searching and examination of all the data.

2 Cor 8 - Paul wanted to TEST the sincerity of their love -- he was looking for concrete evidence that would reveal their inner selves.

Gal. 6:4 "Each one should TEST his own actions. Then he can take appropriate pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else"

Is 43 - The prophet draws a picture of a courtroom scene. The prophets are to bring forth their evidence that they are indeed speakers of truth. The only admissible evidence is a proven track-record of future prediction!

Ezek. 13:2 "Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD!'" --Accuracy and legitimacy are of critical moment!

John 2 - the Jews of the day were always demanding proof. Jesus appealed to his coming resurrection as the capstone proof of his deity.

Act 17 - Paul referred to the historical resurrection as "God's proof" that people will have to answer for their innermost attitudes toward God.

2 Cor 13 - The Corinthians demanded proof of Paul's authority. He submitted historical evidence and lifestyle as data.

Luke 1 - Luke investigated the sources and wrote the account for his royal reader, SO THAT he could know for CERTAIN.

What Jesus said or did

He is constantly doing overt miracles and "out-loud" prayers, for His followers' benefit--so they might see the evidence, understand what's going on, and believe.

He doesn't scorn the 'doubting Thomas' but provides his nail-scarred hands and open side-wound as evidence for him (Jn 20)

He constantly refers people back to the data of the OT--as a means to examine His claims and teachings.

NT leaders, with their emphasis on the factuality of the Christian events (and their preference for the 'critical thinkers')...

Luke who praised the careful and thorough Bereans in Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Paul, who challenges us in I Thess 5.21: " Test everything. Hold on to the good."

And appeals to the 'openness' of the historical facts of early Christianity in his public trial: "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." (Act 26)

And appeals to natural phenomena as evidence of a good God (Acts 14, 17).

Peter, who tries to 'force his readers back into the bedrock of data' in 2Pet. 1 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.

I object!!!

Wait a second, I thought 'Testing the Lord' was VERY bad, even Fatal! (I Cor 10)

Good question (shows you're thinking critically, eh?) If you compare the "DON'T test" passages with the "DO test" passages, you can see the difference in the contexts.

The "DON'T test" passages are those in which the people are NOT seeking evidence/proof IN ORDER TO learn truth, grow, or develop their worldview, but rather are trying to manipulate God into satisfying illicit desires, or into satisfying licit needs, in destructive ways. For example, in Exodus 17, the recipients of an earlier water-providing miracle are now DEMANDING water in a combative manner! (See Ps 78 and 106 for a later historical account of this.)

The 'DO test' passages [referenced above] are those in which the people are enjoined to take a small step of commitment, in expectation of success (sounds a little like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, doesn't it?). The negativism and close-mindedness of the former situation is not present in the latter. The latter applies to people who are open to learning, not just trying to engineer the situation for their practical gain.

As a matter of fact, this 'openness to learning' and 'positive expectation of good' is rather basic to all types of personal discovery situations. We ourselves tend not to 'participate' in these kinds of situations, if we feel we are being 'interrogated' in an abusive manner.

So what is "faith" in the Christian context

It is NOT "believing in something with no credible evidence or proof" as atheists have tried to redefine it and as the above shows to be false, 

Faith is biblically defined as an unwavering trust in God. It is a present trust because God showed himself to be reliable throughout the Bible. To illustrate, God's ultimate promise of salvation was realized through the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ, as evidenced in the Bible and history.

Different Kinds of New Testament Textual Varients

 

Textual variants in the New Testament are different versions of the New Testament that arise when copyists make deliberate or unintentional changes to the text. Variants are usually put in four categories:

1) Neither viable nor meaningful

Most of the variants fall into this category. For example, differences in spelling make up 70% of all textual variants. These are very easy for Greek scholars to detect, and they don’t alter the meaning of the text.  

2) Viable, but not meaningful

These are variants that could be part of the original text. However, they ultimately make no meaningful change to the text. For example, New Testament manuscripts spell John’s name two different ways in Greek, both are viable options but do not affect any doctrine.

3) Meaningful, but not viable

These are variants that do change the meaning of the text, but they could not possibly be in the original. For example, the earliest and most important manuscripts of Luke 6:22 say, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man.” However, we have a single eleventh century manuscript, Codex 2882, which says, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil.” It doesn't include the phrase “on account of the Son of Man.” But since this aberrant reading only occurs in one late manuscript, it is not viable.

4) Viable and meaningful

Meaningful and viable is the smallest and most significant group of variants. These have a good chance of being authentic, and they change the meaning of the text. This group accounts for less than 1% of all textual variants. If you do the math, less than 4,000 variants of the 400,000 total variants are both viable and meaningful. Note: The reason the NT has so many variants is that are so many copies; the same variant found in 100 manuscripts counts as 100 variants.

A few examples of viable and meaningful variants: 

1 John 1:4

New Testament scholars debate over whether 1 John 1:4 should say, “And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete” or “And we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete.” In the original language, these two words differ by only one letter. The meaning of 1 John 1:4 is clearly altered depending on which rendering is used.

1 John 5:7-8

"For there are three that testify: in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree."

Most modern English translations don't contain the italicized portion above. The majority of the earliest manuscripts do not contain the questionable section, but it found its way into the King James translation in the 17th century, which didn't utilize the earliest manuscripts. Most scholars, conservative ones included, say that this section was not in the original writing.

Theologically, this can be perceived as a problem because these words so clearly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. However, a case for the Trinity can be made without them

Mark 16:9-20

Sometimes referred to as the "long ending" of Mark, this portion of Mark's Gospel is not considered by most authorities to be in the original. Most English translations mark this section with brackets, and note that our earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain it. It speaks of drinking poison and picking up snakes (which is probably a bad idea!), but it also mentions the resurrection of Jesus. Considering that the resurrection of Jesus is affirmed elsewhere in Mark's Gospel and in the New Testament, this variant also does not impact any core doctrine.

The case for the "long ending" of Mark 

 

The case against the "long ending" of Mark 

John 7:53 - 8:11

This is a difficult variant for many Christians because it is the only place in the Bible where one of the most beloved stories about Jesus' life is recorded.  Many of us are inspired by Jesus’ words to an angry mob when a woman was caught in the act of adultery: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." and "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Most scholars, including conservatives, agree that this story was not originally in John's Gospel, yet many believe it has a good chance of being historical. (1) In any case, this variant doesn’t challenge any core tenet of the faith.

But again, what doctrinal difference does any viable and meaningful variant make? Here’s what Bart Ehrman [famed atheist/agnostic NT scholar] says in the appendix of his book Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are NOT affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

(1) See Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration p. 319-320; Dan Wallace, "My Favorite Passage That's Not in the Bible," 

The New Testament is 99.5% textually accurate, and no doctrine is in question due to the text.

NT Scholars have examined and analyzed manuscripts of the NT, and the variations among the manuscripts have tended to be almost entirely spelling differences and word choice differences (e.g., "we have peace" vs. "let us have peace" in Romans 5:1). They have not found places where earlier manuscripts had phrases or sentences that are missing from the later manuscripts on which the King James Version (KJV) was based. There are no missing verses.

Instead, in a few places, they have discovered that the earlier manuscripts did not contain phrases or sentences that are included in the later manuscripts. For example, the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13b​ ("For thine is the kingdom...") was apparently added by scribes when they copied Matthew. There are about twenty isolated verses in the NT as found in the KJV that most scholars think were later additions:

Matt. 6:13b; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;

Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28;

Luke 17:36; 23:17;

John 5:4;

Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;

Rom. 16:24;

1 John 5:7b-8a

In addition, two passages of 12 verses each are generally regarded as added to the Gospels by copyists:

Mark 16:9-20;

John 7:53-8:11

Thus, roughly 40 verses​ of the KJV NT, out of 7,957 verses, are now regarded by most scholars as​ later additions​—about one-half of one percent - i.e 0.5%

Meanwhile, scholars have not found any sentences in earlier or more complete manuscripts that are missing from the KJV, but that are regarded as belonging to the original NT writings​. This applies to skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman as much as it does to evangelical scholars like Daniel Wallace. There isn't even any argument on this point. This means that the common belief that material was taken out of the NT by scribes or priests and lost is not supportable by the evidence​.

There are variants that affect the meaning of various verses​. In the vast majority of instances, such variants that do affect meaning do so in doctrinally inconsequential ways​. But there are variants that affect whether a particular verse teaches a core doctrine or not, though in the end, the teaching of the NT as a whole is still the same. That is because every core doctrine is taught in multiple places

For example, 1 John 5:7b-8a​ sounds like an affirmation of the Trinity, but it's one of those 40 or so verses that were added later. However, excluding that verse does not remove the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible; it just means that particular statement should be ignored when formulating doctrine. We have plenty of other verses that are relevant and for which there is no doctrinally significant variant.

Another example might be Acts 20:28​, where some manuscripts have "church of the Lord" instead of "church of God," ; saying "church of the Lord" is not as obviously an affirmation of the deity of Christ for most readers. In actuality, both "Lord" and "God" are titles of deity, so in a sense it doesn't matter.

Here’s what Ehrman says in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.