Introduction

Terms like supernatural and miracle are used in a variety of ways, often colloquialized or else reduced to illusions and events of improbability, respectively. For Christians, however, these terms are defined otherwise and are considered profoundly essential to the core fundamentals of their beliefs. Therefore, value exists in expounding upon these concepts to develop an understanding of the Christian worldview for both Christians and non-Christians to build a grid in which to perceive the claims of the New Testament. Investigation into the authenticity of the New Testament and a discussion of the possibility of miracles are compelling arguments to expel any notion of legend from within the NT narrative, collectively verifying the truth-claims that a man named Jesus died and then was raised from death to life.

Is the New Testament an Authentic Historical Text?

There are many objections to the reliability of the New Testament’s (NT) historicity. For example, — 1) The NT was errantly written—transcribed by mere people, naturally causing the NT to be “full of embellishments, deletions, and additions”[1], 2) there must be many “large-scale and consequential”[2] changes that have modified the original objectives of Christianity, and 3) how do we know the so-called “eyewitnesses” were not in-cahoots to propagate a desired narrative? These are good questions, but are these common claims against the NT’s authenticity valid? These questions can be clarified by investigating the details of 1) the number of NT manuscripts and their dates, 2) the accountability dynamic of eyewitness accounts within the NT, and 3) the degree to which variations within the manuscripts are viable and meaningful.

Volume and Dates of NT Manuscripts:

Bluntly, there are 25,600 manuscripts of the NT excluding many other early sources of Christian literature[3]. The outstanding volume of manuscripts is unprecedented setting the NT apart as extraordinarily unique as there is “no other work of antiquity [that] even comes close to the manuscript evidence of the NT.”[4] Of the early Christian writings themselves, Drs. Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (a self-proclaimed agnostic-atheist)[5], who are dedicated scholarly critics of NT and early Christian texts, admit that the NT citations within early Christian texts alone are “so extensive…if all other sources for knowledge of the [NT] were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire NT”[6] and that “textual critic(s) of the New Testament [are] embarrassed by a wealth of material.”[7]

In the Information Age, it is expected that the relay of information from the moment of an event to the transmission of its details will occur within moments of its onset, being internationally broadcasted. But, for documents of antiquity, traceability from account to event within ten to fifty years is “extraordinarily good”[8] given the modes of transcription and dissemination of the first few centuries. And so, the dates of Acts, Mark, and Paul’s epistles being bracketed between the 50s-60s AD is outstanding. Yet, for the early Christian creed described in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (English Standard Version) containing fundamentals of Jesus’ acts and eyewitness testimonies, “critical, and conservative [scholars], date this creed within just a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion” (emphasis added)[9]—a truly extraordinarily small gap of time from event to written testimony for that age. Moreover, the contents of these many early manuscripts contain a variety of eyewitness accounts that were given relatively soon after Jesus’ resurrection.

Accountability of Eyewitness Accounts within NT Text:

The events that occurred on September 11^th, 2001, are helpful to illustrate the power of eyewitness testimony. The horrid events of 9/11 took place almost twenty-five years ago, yet one could surely recollect the details of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as well as the crash of Flight 93 in an obscure field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. One could also undoubtedly recollect extrinsic details (i.e., where they were, whether they witnessed the events on T.V. or in-person, etc.) and intrinsic details (i.e., how they felt having witnessed the attacks, etc.). Now, say a person had witnessed one of these events, the collision of Flight 11 impacting the North Tower, in-person and that person volunteered today to recount the terrible incident for a documentary that would be broadcasted worldwide.  Given the sensitive nature of 9/11 and the fact that there were many other witnesses (that are still alive), it is easy to understand that the testifier would be uninclined to embellish or flat-out lie about the event. For example, if the testifier claimed that Flight 11 impacted the Empire State Building, they would be met with harsh refutation.

Because of the shared experience, amongst other dynamics of eyewitness testimony, the accountability aspect associated with volunteering to testify as an eyewitness for a testable (that is, historic) hyper-memorable event such as 9/11, or a man appearing to hundreds of people after he was publicly executed, while other witnesses are alive to confirm or refute the associated claim has great repercussions, for better or worse. This is no different for the eyewitness accounts in the NT. It would, therefore, be difficult for significant changes to have occurred in the NT narrative considering the repercussions of volunteering as an eyewitness.[10]

In Luke 1:1-4 and 2 Peter 1:16 (ESV), and in other places, the disciples claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus’ acts as described throughout the Gospels, including his resurrection, as did Paul who was at first a Christian persecutor, killing Christians, and James, Jesus’ own brother who did not follow him before his crucifixion. Publicly admitting one was an eyewitness was no small claim since many other witnesses were still alive (1 Corinthians 15:6, ESV) to refute their claims had they been false or altered. Also consider what this could have meant for those who publicly testified to Jesus’ teachings and resurrection—many times, death (talk about incentive). From an eyewitness standpoint, they had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Like the remarkable volume of NT manuscripts and early Christian writings, the quantity and quality of eyewitness accounts within the NT are also unmatched— “There is nothing in all of ancient writing with this sort of pedigree.”[11]

Viability and Meaningfulness of NT Variants:

Most of the discrepancies, that is the overwhelming majority of 99%, found within the text of NT manuscripts are “a difference of word order” or “simple spelling errors”^[12] or the like, detected through methods of textual criticism[13]. These types of discrepancies are on the order of the difference between “Love is patient and kind” versus “Love is kind and patient” or “Love bears all things” versus “Love bares all things”. Although viable, in that the words used to express the idea represent the original text’s message, these are examples of meaningless variants because they do not change the idea of the message within a certain passage—errors that can easily be rectified through context.[14] These variants can be summed as “minor errors in the peripheral details”^[15] that do not challenge any overall theme within the NT texts.

The above details pertain to 99% of NT variants. What about the remaining one-percent? These are the variants that are both viable and meaningful, which means these variants are not found in the “earliest and most reliable manuscripts.”[16] But what is fascinating about these variants is that they do not challenge any foundational principles of Christian doctrine such as Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.[17] For example, the earliest NT texts of Mark, 3:32 (ESV), clearly show Jesus as having sisters, but this detail is excluded in later copies of Mark. Another clear example of a passage that is both viable and meaningful but does not affect any fundamental Christian doctrine is John 7:53-8:11 (ESV)—the account of the woman caught in adultery. This story is not in the “earliest and best manuscripts.”[18] However, it is included in most modern Bibles but annotated to indicate that this story is not a component of early manuscripts.

The NT possesses an abundance of impressive qualities that is unparalleled in history. In light of the great volume of manuscripts, the quality and quantity of eyewitness accounts, and the underwhelming, yet significant amount of viable and meaningful variants, it becomes very plausible that the contents of the NT, among which are instances of supernatural phenomena including miracles, are true.

Supernatural Mediation—Miracles

What is ‘Supernatural’?

It is interesting to examine the prefixes sur and super. When added to a root word, these prefixes indicate that a thing is “over and above”, or “higher in quantity, quality, or degree.” Over and above can mean in a literal sense of physical orientation, as in supraspinatus, a muscle that is literally superior to or above the infraspinatus. Over and above in respect to higher degree or the like can mean something, or someone is socially above others, here, in a professional sense—a supervisor or superintendent is a person of higher rank and position, etcetera.

Nature is a complex term used to describe the existence of biological, chemical, and physical constituents within a spatiotemporal matrix. The abiotic and biotic constituents are derived from available materials within this matrix and are subject to governing laws and processes. For example, protostars are made of dust and gas freely available in space and, because of gravity and time, are accreted into a dense mass, eventually forming a star, like the sun, and so on. Furthermore, there is a strong dimension of interconnectedness between the biotic and abiotic constituents within this matrix that can be described as systems. Thus, nature is a spatiotemporal reality where physical, chemical, and biological systems and processes and their products are governed by law. Or, simply, in C.S. Lewis’ words— “The Natural is what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord.”[19]

When the prefix super is combined to the word nature it is meant that something is over and above or beyond natural law and phenomena across space and time. Presupposing a God or gods exist, it is understandable that a creator God would have the mastery to intervene in the phenomena of its creation having had the initial power to push everything from nothing into being at the beginning, which is reminiscent of Aristotle’s unmoved mover—”that which is moved must be moved by something, and the prime mover must be essentially immovable, and eternal motion must be excited by something eternal.”[20] Surely the “artificer of artificers who formed [the watch],” that is, the cosmos and everything in it; “who comprehended its construction, and designed its use”[21] possesses the ingenuity to mediate as He saw fit. A Supreme Being would be superior to anything natural, therefore, any mediation conducted by that Being would be supernatural.

What Is a Miracle?

Supernatural mediation would act upon natural phenomenon, not reject it. Supernatural phenomena is not a “violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws”[22] as Voltaire suggested. Rather, supernatural mediation is to say “a factor outside the ordinary, natural order has ‘interfered.’”[23] Or another way—”an interference with Nature by supernatural power.”[24] So, it can be said that the Creator is capable of supernaturally mediating with power upon His creation given his status of Prime Mover and the Artificer of artificers. To supernaturally mediate, or to conduct a miracle, then, is to act between people and natural laws and processes for the purpose of reconciliation (reconciliation being an essential facet of the mediator. Aquinas expressed a similar understanding of a miracle— “God can actually do things besides the natural created order” because if God is the Creator, then “His actions are not ruled by natural necessity but He is free in His actions” and thereby “can act independently of the course of nature in producing some new particular effects.”[25]

The Resurrection—The Empty Tomb and Legend

To this point, it has been shown that the NT is a highly qualified, reliable historic text, suggesting that its contents contain truth. Thus, the accounts within NT manuscripts of a Prime Mover, or God, causing occurrences of supernatural phenomena, such as miracles as described above, are plausibly true events. Therefore, the assertion that Jesus died and was resurrected to life after death is a reasonable claim.

Beside this logic, there remains three lines of evidence within the historically authoritative text of the NT that all orient toward Jesus’ resurrection—1) his empty tomb (Matt 28:5-7, Mark 16:4-6, Luke 24:3-6, John 20:1-8), 2) his appearances “by many proofs” after his death (Acts 1:3, 1 Cor 15:4-8, ESV), and 3) his disciples reverence to preach his crucifixion and resurrection as is evident in Acts and the epistles.[26] However, for the purposes of this project, a limit will be emplaced to focus on the empty tomb as an indicator that Jesus did indeed rise from death to life.

The Empty Tomb:

Jesus was crucified at a “place called The Place of a Skull” (John 19:17, ESV). After “he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30, ESV), Jesus died and “since the tomb was close at hand” (John 19:42, ESV), Jospeh of Arimathea and the pharisee, Nicodemus, placed him within the “new tomb in which no one had yet been laid.” (John 19:41, ESV). Three-days later the tomb was empty. There exists many avenues to substantiate the empty tomb, but for the sake of this project, the case will be made for corroboration.

It is important to emphasize that the common form of the Bible today, that is, a single bound book, is not the original form of biblical text. Overtime, manuscripts were accrued as independent sources then compiled later. This is essential because viewing them as they were, as separate sources, showcases the importance of each manuscript’s claims. For example, the early Christian creed (1 Cor 15:3-7, ESV) has a date of approximately a couple years after Jesus’ resurrection, while Mark has a date in the 50s (AD). They are independent works, yet both contain claims of Jesus resurrection. This becomes more fascinating knowing that Jesus’ resurrection is written about either descriptively or theologically in virtually every NT manuscript, that is, the four Gospels and the epistles. This is a strong instance of corroboration, presenting a profoundly compelling case for Jesus’ resurrection especially considering that “’many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.’”[27] As for the eyewitness accounts of the empty tomb, then, it is noteworthy to mention that this event is found in the four Gospels, Acts 2:29-32 and 13:36-37, 1 Cor 15:3-8, which includes the early Christian creed— a claim that is then beyond “unimpeachable”.

Is the Resurrection Just a Legend?

So, there is an empty tomb. How can it be known that Jesus rose from the dead? Maybe his body was stolen? Perhaps, Jesus did not die in the first place. Or, popularly, the story of Jesus’ resurrection is a “mere legend.”[28] It is helpful then to explore the characteristics of a legend and compare that analysis to the accounts found in NT Scripture.

Legends often contain over exaggeration for purposes of drama.[29] For example, the non-canonical gospel of Peter has Jesus being brought out of the tomb on the shoulders of two men that are so tall that their heads are in the clouds, and Jesus, being on their shoulders has his head beyond the clouds.[30] Then a talking cross emerges from the tomb! The canonical Gospels on the other hand contain “both relevant and irrelevant details” divested of “larger-than-life”[31] writing devices designed to captivate likening them more to a police report than a legendary tale.

Authors of legends also tend to make their heroes perfect and triumphant, void of faults as they “tend to leave out embarrassing details that would make the subject of their book look bad.”[32] Conversely, if textual critics or other scholars identify “self-incriminating passages” or excerpts that “casts the main characters in a negative light” then the text is likely founded in truth.[33] The latter is true for the Gospels as many instances of shameful accounts are strewn throughout the text. For example, in Matthew 27:46 (ESV), the main hero of the NT himself, Jesus, “cried out with a loud voice, saying …’My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” This is obviously not a proud moment, but humiliating.

Recalling how young many of the eyewitness accounts are that compose the NT manuscripts and the early Christian creed (i.e., 2-60 AD) is crucial in determining whether the empty tomb, and therefore the resurrection, is just a fairytale. Basically, there was not enough time for the claims in these texts to become legend.[34] An Oxford historian who specialized in Roman history, a Mr. A.N. Sherwin-White, asserted “that it takes at least two generations for a legend to replace historical facts.”[35] Two generations places all the best NT manuscripts within a impossible-for-legend- to-develop timeline. In respect to the empty tomb then, it becomes evident that the testimonies of Jesus’ death, his burial, and the discovery of his empty tomb are truthful eyewitness accounts, indicating that Jesus rose from death to life.

Conclusion

The NT, as is known today, is the result of a remarkable collection of thousands of manuscripts riddled with compelling eyewitness testimonies that is unrivaled in all works of antiquity. The superb quality and quantity of eyewitness accounts combined with a logical understanding to the possibility that God can perform miracles is powerful reasoning that can be used to deduce the plausibility of the truth claims found in the NT narrative. To this degree, a critical analysis of the NT through the lenses of history, philosophy, and theology have done well to argue for the reality that Jesus did indeed resurrect from death to life.

Bibliography

Aristotle. “Metaphysics: Book 12, Section 1071b.” Harvard University Press, last modified 1989. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12.

Ehrman, Bart. “Why I Am Not A Christian: Is Bart Ehrman a Christian?” The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity, Last modified April 2, 2022. https://ehrmanblog.org/why-i-am-not-a-christian/.

Gould, Paul M., Dickinson, Travis, and Loftin, R. Keith. Stand Firm: Apologetics And the Brilliance of The Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.

Lewis, C.S. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1947.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Ehrman, Bart D. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4^th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Moreland, J.P., and Muehlhoff, Tim. The God Conversation: Revised and Expanded Editions. 2^nd ed. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Paley, William. Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802.

Silva, Ignacio. “Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature.” Religions 15, no. 4 (2024): 422.

---

[1] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 70.

[2] Ibid, 82.

[3] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 82.

[4] Ibid, 83.

[5] Bart Erhman, “Why I Am Not A Christian: Is Bart Ehrman a Christian?” The Bart Ehrman Blog: The History & Literature of Early Christianity, Last modified April 2, 2022, https://ehrmanblog.org/why-i-am-not-a-christian/.

[6] Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4^th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126

[7] Ibid, 51.

[8] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 74.

[9] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 77.

[10] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 71-72.

[11] Ibid, 78.

[12] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 85.

[13] Ibid, 86.

[14] Ibid, 85.

[15] Ibid, 71.

[16] Ibid, 87.

[17] Ibid, 86.

[18] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 87.

[19] C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, (New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1947), 7.

[20] Aristotle, “Metaphysics: Book 12, Section 1071b,” Harvard University Press, last modified 1989, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12.

[21] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 3.

[22] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 54.

[23] Ibid, 55.

[24] C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, (New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1947), 5.

[25] Ignacio Silva, “Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature,” (Religions 15, no. 4 (2024): 422), 2.

[26] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 110-111.

[27] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 112.

[28] J.P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, The God Conversation: Revised and Expanded Editions, 2^nd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 87.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid, 88.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid, 89.

[33] Ibid.

[34] J.P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, The God Conversation: Revised and Expanded Editions, 2^nd ed. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 92.

[35] Ibid.