Post by Josh on Feb 4, 2007 21:05:23 GMT -8
Originally posted 11/25/06:
Before one looks into the gospels and other New Testament books for info on Jesus, those books must be vindicated as authentic, compelling, and at least mostly accurate books. So let's start with the reliability of the New Testament books.
The event that Christianity stands or falls on is the resurrection of Christ, the central doctrine of Christianity. Paul says in one of the earliest dated books of the New Testament (AD 55) that, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep (died) in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). Paul is banking everything on the resurrection being an actual historical event. If it is demonstrated to be a historically tenable belief, then it makes sense to consider further some of the other more difficult passages of the Bible. If it is untenable, then why even waste one's breath on debating whether there is historical evidence for the walls of Jericho falling down?
In particular, I view the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John- biographies of the life of Jesus) as reliable historical documents. This is for many reasons. I'll give you the first for now.
Each New Testament book is arguably either the work of an eyewitness or the work of a close associate of an eyewitness.
In regard to the gospels, let's start with Matthew. Matthew itself does not bear the author's name, but early church father Papias writes matter-of-factly in about 100 AD that Matthew (also known as Levi),the disciple of Jesus, was it's author. Dates for Matthew range from the 50's to the 80's, but I think most likely it was compiled in the 60's. Even if it wasn't written by Matthew himself, but by disciples of Matthew, it maintains authentic eye witness material.
Mark, Papias tells us, was the work of John Mark, close associate of both Peter and Paul. Papias tells us that John Mark wrote up the details of Christ's life that he had heard from Peter during their travels together. So, Mark reflects the testimony of Peter, eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. This gospel was most likely the earliest written, probably in the mid 50's. Many sections of it are borrowed by both Matthew and Luke.
Luke is actually a two-volume work, with the books of Acts being Part II. In my opinion, it was almost certainly written before 70* AD by Luke, Paul's companion, as a legal defense document for Paul's impending trial before the emperor. Luke had ample time in Palestine to interview many eyewitnesses, as well as having a close friendship with Paul, who in his own way was an eye-witness (having had a personal encounter with the risen Christ).
John bears high marks of historical reliability, although it is much debated because of it's well developed Christological themes. I am quite convinced after long study that it was written by the apostle John himself somewhere between the mid 60's to the mid 90's.
Most of Paul's letters are not doubted to be authentic in their claimed authorship.
We can talk about the other books of the NT as needed.
Anyone, please feel free to post follow-up questions about any of this....
*I can provide the rationale for this if anyone's interested.
Before one looks into the gospels and other New Testament books for info on Jesus, those books must be vindicated as authentic, compelling, and at least mostly accurate books. So let's start with the reliability of the New Testament books.
The event that Christianity stands or falls on is the resurrection of Christ, the central doctrine of Christianity. Paul says in one of the earliest dated books of the New Testament (AD 55) that, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep (died) in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men" (1 Corinthians 15:17-19). Paul is banking everything on the resurrection being an actual historical event. If it is demonstrated to be a historically tenable belief, then it makes sense to consider further some of the other more difficult passages of the Bible. If it is untenable, then why even waste one's breath on debating whether there is historical evidence for the walls of Jericho falling down?
In particular, I view the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John- biographies of the life of Jesus) as reliable historical documents. This is for many reasons. I'll give you the first for now.
Each New Testament book is arguably either the work of an eyewitness or the work of a close associate of an eyewitness.
In regard to the gospels, let's start with Matthew. Matthew itself does not bear the author's name, but early church father Papias writes matter-of-factly in about 100 AD that Matthew (also known as Levi),the disciple of Jesus, was it's author. Dates for Matthew range from the 50's to the 80's, but I think most likely it was compiled in the 60's. Even if it wasn't written by Matthew himself, but by disciples of Matthew, it maintains authentic eye witness material.
Mark, Papias tells us, was the work of John Mark, close associate of both Peter and Paul. Papias tells us that John Mark wrote up the details of Christ's life that he had heard from Peter during their travels together. So, Mark reflects the testimony of Peter, eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. This gospel was most likely the earliest written, probably in the mid 50's. Many sections of it are borrowed by both Matthew and Luke.
Luke is actually a two-volume work, with the books of Acts being Part II. In my opinion, it was almost certainly written before 70* AD by Luke, Paul's companion, as a legal defense document for Paul's impending trial before the emperor. Luke had ample time in Palestine to interview many eyewitnesses, as well as having a close friendship with Paul, who in his own way was an eye-witness (having had a personal encounter with the risen Christ).
John bears high marks of historical reliability, although it is much debated because of it's well developed Christological themes. I am quite convinced after long study that it was written by the apostle John himself somewhere between the mid 60's to the mid 90's.
Most of Paul's letters are not doubted to be authentic in their claimed authorship.
We can talk about the other books of the NT as needed.
Anyone, please feel free to post follow-up questions about any of this....
*I can provide the rationale for this if anyone's interested.