When someone criticizes the New testament documents they are doing so because they do not want to believe them. Because if we go by the equation on "what we believe is true" then the way Homer and Plato is known to be real the same goes for the New Testament documents. Even more so....
The Gospels are historical documents (which is sufficient
proof for anything else). The book of John records eye witness testimony. Paul
(Saul of Tarsus) was also an eye witness, Jesus appeared to him and his life
changed.
To tell if history is true we look at indications….”the
strongest indications of historicity occurs when a saying or event can be
constructed from data that are admittedly well-established even across a wide
range of otherwise diverse historical opinions. “ Christopher Blake speaks of such scholarly
agreement as the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the
community of professional historians.”[2] ----I agree with this definition and I am
sure you do…so try staying consistent.
In my above post I referenced Dr. Gary Habermas because he
has done this his whole life….he has an “equation” that is pretty hard to argue
against…..he proves the resurrection based off “skeptics” opinions
“minimal facts” historical method, in which I
employ only those data that satisfy at least two major standards. Each
event or saying must be (1) exceptionally well-attested on multiple grounds,
which might be indicated, for example, by authenticity criteria such as those
which we have listed here. Further, (2) the event or saying must be
recognized as historical by the vast majority of scholars who treat this
subject, especially when they oppose the conclusion that they think is
nonetheless warranted.
….. and honestly that should not be needed…its not needed in
any other category—atheist just put this criteria on the things they justify to
be “right”….for example Louis Gottschalk points out, "[A primary source]
does not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word
original-that is, the very document (usually the first written draft) whose
contents are the subject of discussion-for quite often a later copy or a
printed edition will do just as well; and in the case of the Greek and Roman
classics seldom are any but later copies available."[3]
Check this out and ask yourself “why am I really not
accepting these as history?”
AlHow can you argue these dates and still not believe?
55 A.D., Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, “For I
delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures” (v.3). This is the standard
documentation of the historicity of tradition being kept for an ancient text!
“If Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith also
vain” (v.14)? Paul is declaring sincerely the reality of his beliefs.
51 A.D., Paul preached at Corinth (his 2nd and
later a 3rd missionary journey).
35 A.D., Paul met Peter and James in Jerusalem, just a few short
years after the death of Jesus: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days” (Gal. 1.18). Recall
Stephen was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin council of Jews for explaining the
faith (Acts 7.59).
Barnabas brought Paul to see Peter and James. What did Paul receive from
Peter and James? “And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After
that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater
part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15.5,6). Jesus was seen
by at least 11 to 12 different groups in different settings. This is all a
fairly tight network!
32 A.D., Paul was converted one and half years after the cross and
Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.
30 A.D. Jesus died on the cross. - Gary Habermas
used this date for ease of reference; but, I have talked with him, and he
agrees that it is quite possible Jesus died on April 1st, 33 AD, Friday
(Gregorian) - April 3rd (Julian). The evidence for this date would be based on these
calculations.[4]
WORDS FROM AN EX-CHRISTIAN WELL STUDIED WELL KNOWN AND
TRUSTED HISTORIAN (professional historian unlike most of us)
Ehrman says:
“What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ
Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say
that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the
Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even
though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity
was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are
saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery
religions; they’ve read a few popular books, but they’re not scholars of
mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery
religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they’re secret! So I
think it’s crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I
think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly
to talk about him not existing. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible
historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is
a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to
any of this.” Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, “The Gospel
According to Bart”, Fortean Times (221), 2007
Or maybe this dialogue is better;
What is interesting is Licona’s discussion of Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman has become somewhat of a hero of the atheist community because of his
popular works such as Misquoting Jesus, etc. I hope the atheist community knows
Ehrman agrees with the Historical Bedrock.
For example (from Ehrman):
1. Jesus died by crucifixion: Ehrman says: “One of the most
certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman
prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate” (see The New Testament: An Historical
Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pgs, 261-262).
2. Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples had
experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been
resurrected and had appeared to them: Ehrman says: “Why, then, did some of the
disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his crucifixion? I don’t doubt at all
that some disciples claimed this. We don’t have any of their written testimony,
but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what
they claimed, and I don’t think he is making it up. And he knew are least a
couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event (Galatians
1:18-19).” ( see The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings, pgs, 282).
3. Within a few years after Jesus death, Paul converted
after a personal experience that he interpreted as a post resurrection
appearance of Jesus to him: Ehrman says: “There is no doubt that [Paul]
believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.” (see
see see The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings, pgs, 301).
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were
literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold
proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary
day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected
Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider
skeptic).
How are we dating this and why?[5]
If the book ends with an event of Martin Luther King Jr , the very
leader of the movement, still alive, when would you conclude the book was
written? Obviously before his assassination in April of 1968. This is the same
situation we have with Luke’s narrative. His book ends with the main leaders
still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar
and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was
written by 62.) {3}.
If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was
written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original
recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official),
that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, “in my former
book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began t do and to teach..” The
‘former book” must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to
Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).
How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place
Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and
there had to be some time between Luke’s first writing to Theophilus and his
second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is
realistically 60 or before.
This date also makes sense in light of Paul’s quotation of
Luke’s gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62-65. Paul quotes from Luke 10:7
and calls it ‘scripture’ (1Timothy 5:18). Therefore, Luke’s gospel must have
been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and
Timothy to know its contents & regard it as scripture. (By the way, this
was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold
assertion that Luke’s gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible. The
Old Testament he treasured so much!)
If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been
written in the mid-to-late 50’s if not earlier. Why question because Luke says
that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things
that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since
I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seems
also good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may know the certainty of the things that you have been taught.
(Luke 1-4)
Most scholars believe Mark’s gospel was one of those eye
witness sources. And if those Dead Sea Scrolls fragments we mentioned above are
really from A.D. 50-70, then certainly Mark is earlier. But even if Mark isn’t
before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is
before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eye
witness testimony written between 25 or 30 years of Jesus death, burial, and
resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the
eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?
Some New Testament Book’s Were Penned In The 40s And 50s
A.D., With Sources From The 30s (Only The A Few Years After The Death Of Jesus)
As certain as we are about the date of Luke’s records, there
is no doubt from anyone, including the most liberal of scholars, that Paul
wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern day Greece)
sometime between 55 and 56. In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in
the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies about tongues,
prophecies, and the Lord Supper. This, of course, demonstrates that the church
in Corinth was experiencing some kind of miraculous activity and was already
observing the Lord’s Supper with in 25 years of the Resurrection.
But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it
contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection
itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down testimony
he received from others and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ
appeared to him:
For I delivered to you what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried and that
He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He
appeared to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve. After that He appeared to more
that five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remand until now, but some
have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all of the apostles; and
last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor.
15:3-8, NASB).
Where did Paul get what he ‘received’? He probably received
from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his
conversion (Galatians 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas
points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part
of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself, eighteen
months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. {4} There is no
possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right
back to the time and place of the event itself. {5} If there was ever a place
that a legendary Resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the
Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have
easily done so by parading Jesus’ body around the city.
More over, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses
whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Peter himself (“Cephas”
is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500
others at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one
outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what
Paul was saying, he was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check
him out. Bible scholar William Lillie puts it this way:
What gives a special authority to the list as historical
evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still
alive. St. Paul says, in effect: “If you don’t believe me, you can ask them.”
Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the
event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that
happened nearly two thousand years ago. {6}
If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give
such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all
credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.
In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New
Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D.
48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. In
fact (and we know we may be going out on a limb here!) all of Paul’s works had
to have been written before he died, which was sometime in the mid-60s.
But it’s not just conservative scholars who believe these
early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson,
admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching
the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled
Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books,
including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65.
The great and once-liberal archaeologist William F.
Albright, after seeing how well the New Testament fit with the archaeological
and historical data, wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no
longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about
A.D. 80.” {[5]}
Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was
written by a baptized Jew between the 40s and the 80s of the first century
(very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75).” {[6]}
[1][1]
http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
[2] Louis Gottschalk Understanding History: A
Primer of Historical Method 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1969), pp.53-54. For a good discussion of the concept of an original autograph
in terms of the distinction between types and tokens, see Greg L. Bahnsen,
"The Inerrancy of the Autographs" in Inerrancy ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,1980), pp.151-93.
[3] http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm
[4] http://www.inplainsite.org/html/dating_the_nt.html
[5] William
F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1956), 136
[6] William
F. Albright, “William Albright: Toward a More Conservative View,” Christianity
Today, January 18, 1963, 3
No comments:
Post a Comment