Free More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, Sean McDowell

to be the first release of twenty known gospels from the early Christian era. The most notable of these are the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Philip, Peter, and Mary. The implication is clear: these ancient texts reveal a different view of Jesus just as valid as the time-honored tradition of the church. Is there any truth to these claims? Have the four Gospels lost their privileged status as unique purveyors of the life and ministry of Jesus? Are these recently uncovered gospels transforming our understanding of Christianity?
    As extraordinary and dramatic as such claims may seem, they simply fall apart under the weight of historical analysis. In Hidden Gospels, historian Philip Jenkins concludes that the “idea that the various noncanonical gospels are equally valid witnesses to Christian antiquity is deeply flawed.” 12 The most serious challenge to the status of these other gospels is their late dating. While the four Gospels were all written within the first century, all evidence points to these other gospels being composed between AD 120 and 250, at least three generations removed from the life of Christ.
----
    What Do You Think?
     
    Do you give any credence to books, articles, or TV documentaries with extrabiblical information about the credibility and historicity of Jesus? How would you compare the historical evidence for Jesus with that for other well-known persons?
----
    Because these texts are written so much later than the four traditional Gospels, it is unlikely that they reveal any novel information about the historical Jesus. Thus, New Testament professor Craig A. Evans concludes, “The scholarly track record with respect to the use of these extracanonical Gospels is, frankly, embarrassing. . . . We have found that these extracanonical Gospels do not offer early, reliable tradition, independent of what we possess in the New Testament Gospels.” 13
    Often non-Christians tell me that we can’t trust what the Bible says. “Why, it was written more than two thousand years ago. It’s full of errors and discrepancies,” they say. I reply that I believe I can trust the Scriptures. Then I describe an incident that took place during a lecture in a history class. I stated that I believed there was more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than for almost any other ten pieces of classical literature put together.
    The professor sat over in the corner snickering, as if to say, “Oh, come on now, you can’t believe that.” I asked him what he was snickering about. He replied, “I can’t believe you have the audacity to claim in a history class that the New Testament is reliable. That’s ridiculous!”
    Wanting to find common ground for a gentlemanly discussion, I asked him this question: “Tell me, sir, as a historian, what are the tests that you apply to any piece of historical writing to determine its accuracy and reliability?” I was amazed that he did not have any such tests. In fact, I have yet to get a positive answer to this question. “I have some tests,” I answered. I told him that I strongly believe we should test the historical reliability of the Scripture by the same rigorous criteria that we apply to all historical documents. Military historian Chauncey Sanders lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. 14 Let’s examine each one.
    Bibliographical Test
    The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which ancient documents reach us from the past. In other words, since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we have to ask the questions: How reliable are the copies we have? How many manuscripts have survived? How consistent are they? What is the time interval between the original and the extant copies?
    We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority for the New Testament by comparing it to textual material available to support other