RevMARKSman
8th January 2007, 01:22
I'd like to see a thread where people debunk the supposed truth of scripture and tradition, especially with Christianity.
I'll start with this article/conglomerate I was forced to read in "religious ed":
Let's say we assume that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection do date to the First Century. Likewise, let's assume that the writers were indeed writing what they believed to be true. That still doesn't actually establish the resurrection as a historical fact.
Many skeptics accept the basic facts as presented, but dispute that they indicate a resurrection. They argue that there is an alternate explanation which explains the events as recorded in the New Testament. Just because I saw David Copperfield apparently make an airplane disappear doesn't mean I should believe in his ability to disintegrate objects.
Even in the Gospels, there is no eyewitness account of the resurrection itself. No one actually sees Jesus tearing off the grave clothes and getting out of the tomb. He dies, he's buried, and on Sunday Morning the tomb is empty. Could there be an explanation other than resurrection which is plausible and accounts for the facts as recorded in the Gospels?
Let's look at that question in this article. First, though, let's deal with an argument which is really a non-argument..
A Red Herring
I am borrowing a term from C.S. Lewis' book Miracles: A Preliminary Study. The "red herring" he refers to is a belief among modern intellectuals and citizens in general that people could believe in miracles in ancient times because they didn't have the benefit of modern science. For instance, someone might say, "Well, they could believe in miracles like the resurrection in ancient times because they didn't have medical science to explain the processes of death and decomposition."
Ironically, it is medical science which has called into question the permanency of death. Today, we agonize over turning off life support wondering if the person is really dead and we are just keeping the heart pumping or if they are somehow alive and might regain consciousness.
The ancients had no such doubts. Breathing stopped and you had no heartbeat and you were dead.
However, having scientific knowledge says nothing about the possibility of a miracle occurring. Science tells us what will happen according to natural laws. Science tells me that my car will perform in such and such a way when I depress the gas pedal so much. However, it cannot tell me that someone else will run a stop sign and hit my car.
Likewise, science can tell me that a human body put under a certain type of stress like crucifixion will die according to natural law. However, it cannot tell me anything about some intelligence outside of the natural world bringing that person back to life.
Lack or abundance of scientific knowledge about how the world works does not affect whether or not a miracle occurs. To investigate the resurrection, we must look not to science but to the evidence of history, the eyewitness accounts, and whether or not they were properly interpreted.
So with that out of the way, let's get on with looking at the alternate explanations of the resurrection.
Obviously, the first objection raised by skeptics about Biblical accounts of Jesus' life, and particularly as regards his death and resurrection, is that they were filled with legends and myths to make HIm seem more miraculous than He actually was.
Indeed, skeptics routinely treat the teachings of Jesus as being generally authentic, while discounting the miraculous. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to re-write the Gospels by cutting out all accounts of the miraculous. The "Jefferson Bible" as it is called is still available as a curiosity today. The interesting thing is that without any evidence that the miraculous did not occur as recorded in the Gospels, they are willing to discount them out of hand. Yet, Christians are the ones accused of accepting the story of the resurrection on "blind faith."
Maybe it’s a legend
However, the skeptics have a point. After awhile, especially in the ancient world, legends could arise about religious or political leaders. Might not this is a case of one such legend?
Well, let's look at this possibility logically. While, the skeptic can accept the purely human Jesus hypothesis on blind faith, the Christian does not have that luxury. We are called to be investigators of the truth, to "prove all things" (I Thess. 5.21) and "be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us." So, let's look at the evidence. First, the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are either eyewitness accounts or writings based on eyewitness accounts. In other words they were written while people were still alive who knew the facts in the case. This means that when the Gospel of Mark was read in Jerusalem, someone could have said, "Hold on, Mark, that didn't happen, and you know it. Remember, what really happened was..."
This is a significant point, the gospels were originally circulated in areas where there were plenty of people still alive who knew what had happened. Only a fool writes lies to people who know the truth, and we have no evidence the evangelists were fools.
It takes a long time for the truth to change into legend. Some say 2-3 generations or well over 100 years. All of the gospels date to within a time frame of 50 A.D. and 90 A.D. In other words from 20 - 60 years after the crucifixion of Christ. No reputable folklorist would suggest that the story of a simple teacher could change into that of a dying God who arises out of the grave and ascends to heaven in such a short period of time.
But Weren’t the Gospels Written Long after The Fact?
"Okay," you say, "That makes sense if, and this is a big IF, the gospels were written during the time frame you set forth. Some say they were not written until up to 200 years later. At the very least, since we don't have the original documents, they could have been edited much later. They could have been generally accurate at the time, but that stuff about the resurrection could have been added later to make this a better story with a happy ending. Something to 'rally the troops' during a time of persecution."
First, it is interesting that the assertion of a date as late as 200 A.D. is still circulating after the discovery of the John Ryland Manuscript. This portion of the Gospel of John dates to 130 A.D. 70 years earlier than that school of criticism placing the Gospel accounts being written during the late second century or early third. Likewise t he Bodmer Papyrus dates to the middle of the second century and contains most of the Gospel of John.
The Chester Beatty Papyri dates to just 200 A.D. and contains large portions of the New Testament. Unless, the critics suggest that this is the original or one of the original pieces of "fiction" we now call the Gospels, then obviously if a copy exists at this time, the originals had been around for much longer.
Sir Fredric Kenyon writing in The Bible and Modern Scholarship said this about the Chester Beatty Manuscript,
The net result of this discovery -- by far the most important since the discovery of the Sinaiticus -- is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.
Even Karen Armstrong, a skeptic, writes in her book A History of God:
We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.
Even she is willing to put the first Gospel in A.D. 70. And as we already discussed her to claim that less than 40 years is enough time for a complex, detailed mythology to develop is illogical and not consistent with sound scholarship.
Indeed, most scholars, both believers and nonbelievers are willing to accept that the Gospels were written sometime in the 70’s and 80’s with the Gospel of John possibly being written as late as the early 90’s. This means that they were written within 40-60 years of the actual events. This makes the Gospels to be among the most verifiably contemporary documents of ancient times. Thus, with even the earliest manuscripts dating to within less than 100 years of their authorship is remarkable.
Indeed, if the same standards the critics apply to the Bible were applied to other books of ancient times, we would have to reject as unreliable virtually all ancient literature. Just a sampling shows that the time gaps between works considered authoritative are much greater than those with the Gospels. Here are a few examples.
Caesar 1000 year gap
Plato 1300 year gap
Thucydides 1300 year gap
Herodotus 1300 year gap
Aristotle 1400 year gap
Pliny the Younger 800 year gap
Compare this to a 40 year gap for portions of the Gospel of John and less than 200 year gap for near complete copies of the New Testament.
You can’t Quote it if It wasn’t Written
However, even if we had no early manuscripts, there are other indications of early authorship. Consider the quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the early church fathers. The likes of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr writing in the late first and early second centuries of the current era quote frequently from the New Testament writings often referring to them as scriptures. Even at this early stage of the growth of the church, some of the writings of the Apostles were considered on par with Old Testament writings. One scholar decided to try and reconstruct the entire New Testament from the writings of first and second century church fathers and succeeded. You cannot quote what does not exist. These quotations alone should be enough to push the dates of the Gospels back to their traditional dates.
What about the Epistles?
But even if we did not have the Gospels, we still have the epistles. There is little doubt, even among skeptics, that the writings of Paul in particular can be ascribed to the period between about 50 A.D. and his death in 67 A.D. Thus, Paul is writing less than 20 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. There is little dispute about the dates of his epistles. In fact, just this week, I heard some skeptics on a TV news magazine discussing how Paul's writings were intended for his time only. While I cannot agree to that, it does point out that their belief is that the epistles were written in the middle of the first century.
Paul frequently speaks of the resurrection of Jesus. It's almost the core of his doctrine. At one point speaking to the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead he says:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 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. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(1Co 15:3-8)
The obvious question is where and when did Paul "receive" this doctrine of the resurrection? In all probability, he received it during the time he spent learning from Ananias and other Christians after his experience on the Road to Damascus. Because of the circumstances of the persecution of the Christians we can date this fairly precisely to about 2 - 3 years after the resurrection. So, the first reports of the resurrection were not recorded by an overzealous believer in the Third Century. If so, how could Paul in the First Century have known about it. And if Paul had concocted the story of the resurrection on his own, then why did he in essence, challenge people to check out his story.
An Indirect Proof
There is yet another route by which we can date at least one of the Gospels to an early date. It is less certain than what has been presented for the Epistles, but is still suggestive.
Luke writes the book of Acts as a sequel to his Gospel. He states this clearly in the introduction to the book:
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
(Act 1:1)
The interesting thing about the book of Acts is that by the ninth chapter, it becomes mostly a biography of the journeys of Paul. What makes this interesting is that at the end of the book, Paul is under house arrest in Rome. In other words, Luke had to have concluded writing the book before Paul's death. Otherwise, why would he have not written of Paul's death. And to argue, he would not have known of it is questionable, because the last chapter of acts is written in the first person. Luke accompanied Paul on the journey to Rome.
Thus, if Acts was written before 67 A.D. when Paul died, and if this is the second book written by Luke, the first being the Gospel bearing his name, then the Gospel must have been written earlier. If only a year earlier, that places a firm date of it being written prior to 66 A.D. or a mere 30 years or so after the events of Easter week. Again, hardly enough time for a complex mythology turning a provincial, local teacher into a divine avatar of the living God, who dies for the sin of the world, then is resurrected and ascends to heaven.
The Bible is a history book above all else. It touches on science, theology, ethics, and philosophy, but it discusses these topics in the context of a historical narrative. Therefore, we need to apply solid principles of historiography in our evaluation of the text.
When evaluating any historical document the investigator must ask six significant questions.
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
Historians prefer primary source material over secondary. What that means is that they prefer a document which is written during or shortly after the events recorded by people who had direct knowledge of those events. Primary source material includes letters, official records, funerary inscriptions, and books written by people who lived through the events or interviewed those who were.
Secondary sources refer to historical materials based on primary sources. A high school or college general history text book or a PBS or History Channel special would be examples of secondary sources.
The Bible is primary source material. It was written during the time the events occurred. People who were directly involved in the events write most of the books. Sometimes, as in the case of Luke, interviews provided the basis of the accounts. Either way, the material qualifies as primary source material.
2. If the document is a primary source, was it written close to the events?
If I am writing a history of the first World War, and I interview a 100 year old man who tells me his remembrances of fighting in World War I, there is a great chance for the information to be distorted. On the other hand, if I ask a Viet Nam Veteran about his experiences, then I have a better chance of getting an accurate answer. And if I ask someone who flew air raids in Kosovo, I have an even greater chance at accuracy.
With the passing of time, memories fade and legends grow. This is especially true if no one is left around to contradict your account of things. The New Testament documents can be easily dated to within 20-60 years of the actual events making them excellent primary source material.
3. If the document is a primary source was the text of the document faithfully preserved?
Rarely does one have an original autograph of an ancient document. This is particularly true of book length material. So, the question is whether or not the documents were faithfully copied over time. Was extraneous material added or removed?
We do this by looking for inconsistencies in the text or contradictions between copies. Fortunately with the New Testament particularly, we have an abundance of material with which to work. We have over 13,000 early manuscripts!
Some skeptics argue that these texts are terribly inconsistent pointing to some 200,000 variant readings. However, with such an abundance of manuscripts, this number is misleading. Let’s say there were 13,000 handwritten copies of this lesson and in half of those I left out the apostrophe in "Let’s" at the beginning of this sentence then that would count as 6,500 "errors" and 13,000 inconsistencies. After evaluating these "errors and inconsistencies" Geisler and Nix observed:
Only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above ‘rivialities,’ or can in any sense be called ‘substantial variations.’ Mathematically, this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure.
Sir Frederic Kenyon says additionally that "No fundamental doctrine of Christian faith rests on a disputed reading …. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain."
So, the text has been transmitted in a fundamentally pure state. Considering it’s 2000 year journey, that in and of itself constitutes a miracle
4. Are the writers credible reporters of the facts?
The question about any historical document has to do with authorship. Who wrote it? Are they honest? Are they competent? As regards the New Testament, the argument is often made that it was written by a bunch of uneducated shepherds and fishermen.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s look at the backgrounds of the Evangelists. Matthew had been a tax collector which meant he had to have knowledge of accounting and written communication. This was a position, though hated, which required a high level of education. Luke was a physician and probably wealthy and influential in his own right. Mark was the son of a wealthy land owner and a Levite, meaning he was of the priestly caste in Jewish culture who would have been well educated. John was, indeed, a fisherman. However, that meant that he was a small business owner who had to have a knowledge of accounting and trade. He also could read and write three languages as could all the other Gospel writers.
And what about Paul. God chooses the ancient equivalent of a PhD To write most of the New Testament. They may have been common men, but hardly ignorant or uneducated.
5. Do other contemporary documents confirm the facts presented?
If I have a friend who is fighting in Iraq, and he sends me an account of the battle, and then I see the same account on CNN and I read about it in the newspaper and all the accounts agree in substance, then I can assume that my friend’s letter is accurate.
Certainly, other historical documents from the writings of Josephus to those of Pliny the Younger confirm portions of the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. We will look at these in greater depth in a future lesson.
6. Is there archeological evidence confirming the documentary record?
In finding confirmation of documentary evidence, we can also look at the findings of archeology. If a battle reported in a document and then we find in the appropriate place, arrowheads, ashes, rubble and the bones of soldiers jumbled together, then we have confirmation of the written report.
While archeology cannot confirm questions of faith, it can give us a context by which to evaluate the documentary evidence. While it is beyond the scope of this particular lesson to go into depth about archeological evidences of the New Testament, suffice it to say that Biblical archeology has a remarkable track record of confirming the Biblical accounts over the years. As one archeologist put it, "If there’s a dispute between our theories and the book, I go with the book, because it is usually right."
Does anyone have the time to go through and refute all this bullshit?
I'll start with this article/conglomerate I was forced to read in "religious ed":
Let's say we assume that the New Testament accounts of the resurrection do date to the First Century. Likewise, let's assume that the writers were indeed writing what they believed to be true. That still doesn't actually establish the resurrection as a historical fact.
Many skeptics accept the basic facts as presented, but dispute that they indicate a resurrection. They argue that there is an alternate explanation which explains the events as recorded in the New Testament. Just because I saw David Copperfield apparently make an airplane disappear doesn't mean I should believe in his ability to disintegrate objects.
Even in the Gospels, there is no eyewitness account of the resurrection itself. No one actually sees Jesus tearing off the grave clothes and getting out of the tomb. He dies, he's buried, and on Sunday Morning the tomb is empty. Could there be an explanation other than resurrection which is plausible and accounts for the facts as recorded in the Gospels?
Let's look at that question in this article. First, though, let's deal with an argument which is really a non-argument..
A Red Herring
I am borrowing a term from C.S. Lewis' book Miracles: A Preliminary Study. The "red herring" he refers to is a belief among modern intellectuals and citizens in general that people could believe in miracles in ancient times because they didn't have the benefit of modern science. For instance, someone might say, "Well, they could believe in miracles like the resurrection in ancient times because they didn't have medical science to explain the processes of death and decomposition."
Ironically, it is medical science which has called into question the permanency of death. Today, we agonize over turning off life support wondering if the person is really dead and we are just keeping the heart pumping or if they are somehow alive and might regain consciousness.
The ancients had no such doubts. Breathing stopped and you had no heartbeat and you were dead.
However, having scientific knowledge says nothing about the possibility of a miracle occurring. Science tells us what will happen according to natural laws. Science tells me that my car will perform in such and such a way when I depress the gas pedal so much. However, it cannot tell me that someone else will run a stop sign and hit my car.
Likewise, science can tell me that a human body put under a certain type of stress like crucifixion will die according to natural law. However, it cannot tell me anything about some intelligence outside of the natural world bringing that person back to life.
Lack or abundance of scientific knowledge about how the world works does not affect whether or not a miracle occurs. To investigate the resurrection, we must look not to science but to the evidence of history, the eyewitness accounts, and whether or not they were properly interpreted.
So with that out of the way, let's get on with looking at the alternate explanations of the resurrection.
Obviously, the first objection raised by skeptics about Biblical accounts of Jesus' life, and particularly as regards his death and resurrection, is that they were filled with legends and myths to make HIm seem more miraculous than He actually was.
Indeed, skeptics routinely treat the teachings of Jesus as being generally authentic, while discounting the miraculous. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to re-write the Gospels by cutting out all accounts of the miraculous. The "Jefferson Bible" as it is called is still available as a curiosity today. The interesting thing is that without any evidence that the miraculous did not occur as recorded in the Gospels, they are willing to discount them out of hand. Yet, Christians are the ones accused of accepting the story of the resurrection on "blind faith."
Maybe it’s a legend
However, the skeptics have a point. After awhile, especially in the ancient world, legends could arise about religious or political leaders. Might not this is a case of one such legend?
Well, let's look at this possibility logically. While, the skeptic can accept the purely human Jesus hypothesis on blind faith, the Christian does not have that luxury. We are called to be investigators of the truth, to "prove all things" (I Thess. 5.21) and "be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us." So, let's look at the evidence. First, the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are either eyewitness accounts or writings based on eyewitness accounts. In other words they were written while people were still alive who knew the facts in the case. This means that when the Gospel of Mark was read in Jerusalem, someone could have said, "Hold on, Mark, that didn't happen, and you know it. Remember, what really happened was..."
This is a significant point, the gospels were originally circulated in areas where there were plenty of people still alive who knew what had happened. Only a fool writes lies to people who know the truth, and we have no evidence the evangelists were fools.
It takes a long time for the truth to change into legend. Some say 2-3 generations or well over 100 years. All of the gospels date to within a time frame of 50 A.D. and 90 A.D. In other words from 20 - 60 years after the crucifixion of Christ. No reputable folklorist would suggest that the story of a simple teacher could change into that of a dying God who arises out of the grave and ascends to heaven in such a short period of time.
But Weren’t the Gospels Written Long after The Fact?
"Okay," you say, "That makes sense if, and this is a big IF, the gospels were written during the time frame you set forth. Some say they were not written until up to 200 years later. At the very least, since we don't have the original documents, they could have been edited much later. They could have been generally accurate at the time, but that stuff about the resurrection could have been added later to make this a better story with a happy ending. Something to 'rally the troops' during a time of persecution."
First, it is interesting that the assertion of a date as late as 200 A.D. is still circulating after the discovery of the John Ryland Manuscript. This portion of the Gospel of John dates to 130 A.D. 70 years earlier than that school of criticism placing the Gospel accounts being written during the late second century or early third. Likewise t he Bodmer Papyrus dates to the middle of the second century and contains most of the Gospel of John.
The Chester Beatty Papyri dates to just 200 A.D. and contains large portions of the New Testament. Unless, the critics suggest that this is the original or one of the original pieces of "fiction" we now call the Gospels, then obviously if a copy exists at this time, the originals had been around for much longer.
Sir Fredric Kenyon writing in The Bible and Modern Scholarship said this about the Chester Beatty Manuscript,
The net result of this discovery -- by far the most important since the discovery of the Sinaiticus -- is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.
Even Karen Armstrong, a skeptic, writes in her book A History of God:
We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. Mark’s gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal.
Even she is willing to put the first Gospel in A.D. 70. And as we already discussed her to claim that less than 40 years is enough time for a complex, detailed mythology to develop is illogical and not consistent with sound scholarship.
Indeed, most scholars, both believers and nonbelievers are willing to accept that the Gospels were written sometime in the 70’s and 80’s with the Gospel of John possibly being written as late as the early 90’s. This means that they were written within 40-60 years of the actual events. This makes the Gospels to be among the most verifiably contemporary documents of ancient times. Thus, with even the earliest manuscripts dating to within less than 100 years of their authorship is remarkable.
Indeed, if the same standards the critics apply to the Bible were applied to other books of ancient times, we would have to reject as unreliable virtually all ancient literature. Just a sampling shows that the time gaps between works considered authoritative are much greater than those with the Gospels. Here are a few examples.
Caesar 1000 year gap
Plato 1300 year gap
Thucydides 1300 year gap
Herodotus 1300 year gap
Aristotle 1400 year gap
Pliny the Younger 800 year gap
Compare this to a 40 year gap for portions of the Gospel of John and less than 200 year gap for near complete copies of the New Testament.
You can’t Quote it if It wasn’t Written
However, even if we had no early manuscripts, there are other indications of early authorship. Consider the quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the early church fathers. The likes of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr writing in the late first and early second centuries of the current era quote frequently from the New Testament writings often referring to them as scriptures. Even at this early stage of the growth of the church, some of the writings of the Apostles were considered on par with Old Testament writings. One scholar decided to try and reconstruct the entire New Testament from the writings of first and second century church fathers and succeeded. You cannot quote what does not exist. These quotations alone should be enough to push the dates of the Gospels back to their traditional dates.
What about the Epistles?
But even if we did not have the Gospels, we still have the epistles. There is little doubt, even among skeptics, that the writings of Paul in particular can be ascribed to the period between about 50 A.D. and his death in 67 A.D. Thus, Paul is writing less than 20 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. There is little dispute about the dates of his epistles. In fact, just this week, I heard some skeptics on a TV news magazine discussing how Paul's writings were intended for his time only. While I cannot agree to that, it does point out that their belief is that the epistles were written in the middle of the first century.
Paul frequently speaks of the resurrection of Jesus. It's almost the core of his doctrine. At one point speaking to the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead he says:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 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. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(1Co 15:3-8)
The obvious question is where and when did Paul "receive" this doctrine of the resurrection? In all probability, he received it during the time he spent learning from Ananias and other Christians after his experience on the Road to Damascus. Because of the circumstances of the persecution of the Christians we can date this fairly precisely to about 2 - 3 years after the resurrection. So, the first reports of the resurrection were not recorded by an overzealous believer in the Third Century. If so, how could Paul in the First Century have known about it. And if Paul had concocted the story of the resurrection on his own, then why did he in essence, challenge people to check out his story.
An Indirect Proof
There is yet another route by which we can date at least one of the Gospels to an early date. It is less certain than what has been presented for the Epistles, but is still suggestive.
Luke writes the book of Acts as a sequel to his Gospel. He states this clearly in the introduction to the book:
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
(Act 1:1)
The interesting thing about the book of Acts is that by the ninth chapter, it becomes mostly a biography of the journeys of Paul. What makes this interesting is that at the end of the book, Paul is under house arrest in Rome. In other words, Luke had to have concluded writing the book before Paul's death. Otherwise, why would he have not written of Paul's death. And to argue, he would not have known of it is questionable, because the last chapter of acts is written in the first person. Luke accompanied Paul on the journey to Rome.
Thus, if Acts was written before 67 A.D. when Paul died, and if this is the second book written by Luke, the first being the Gospel bearing his name, then the Gospel must have been written earlier. If only a year earlier, that places a firm date of it being written prior to 66 A.D. or a mere 30 years or so after the events of Easter week. Again, hardly enough time for a complex mythology turning a provincial, local teacher into a divine avatar of the living God, who dies for the sin of the world, then is resurrected and ascends to heaven.
The Bible is a history book above all else. It touches on science, theology, ethics, and philosophy, but it discusses these topics in the context of a historical narrative. Therefore, we need to apply solid principles of historiography in our evaluation of the text.
When evaluating any historical document the investigator must ask six significant questions.
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
Historians prefer primary source material over secondary. What that means is that they prefer a document which is written during or shortly after the events recorded by people who had direct knowledge of those events. Primary source material includes letters, official records, funerary inscriptions, and books written by people who lived through the events or interviewed those who were.
Secondary sources refer to historical materials based on primary sources. A high school or college general history text book or a PBS or History Channel special would be examples of secondary sources.
The Bible is primary source material. It was written during the time the events occurred. People who were directly involved in the events write most of the books. Sometimes, as in the case of Luke, interviews provided the basis of the accounts. Either way, the material qualifies as primary source material.
2. If the document is a primary source, was it written close to the events?
If I am writing a history of the first World War, and I interview a 100 year old man who tells me his remembrances of fighting in World War I, there is a great chance for the information to be distorted. On the other hand, if I ask a Viet Nam Veteran about his experiences, then I have a better chance of getting an accurate answer. And if I ask someone who flew air raids in Kosovo, I have an even greater chance at accuracy.
With the passing of time, memories fade and legends grow. This is especially true if no one is left around to contradict your account of things. The New Testament documents can be easily dated to within 20-60 years of the actual events making them excellent primary source material.
3. If the document is a primary source was the text of the document faithfully preserved?
Rarely does one have an original autograph of an ancient document. This is particularly true of book length material. So, the question is whether or not the documents were faithfully copied over time. Was extraneous material added or removed?
We do this by looking for inconsistencies in the text or contradictions between copies. Fortunately with the New Testament particularly, we have an abundance of material with which to work. We have over 13,000 early manuscripts!
Some skeptics argue that these texts are terribly inconsistent pointing to some 200,000 variant readings. However, with such an abundance of manuscripts, this number is misleading. Let’s say there were 13,000 handwritten copies of this lesson and in half of those I left out the apostrophe in "Let’s" at the beginning of this sentence then that would count as 6,500 "errors" and 13,000 inconsistencies. After evaluating these "errors and inconsistencies" Geisler and Nix observed:
Only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above ‘rivialities,’ or can in any sense be called ‘substantial variations.’ Mathematically, this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure.
Sir Frederic Kenyon says additionally that "No fundamental doctrine of Christian faith rests on a disputed reading …. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain."
So, the text has been transmitted in a fundamentally pure state. Considering it’s 2000 year journey, that in and of itself constitutes a miracle
4. Are the writers credible reporters of the facts?
The question about any historical document has to do with authorship. Who wrote it? Are they honest? Are they competent? As regards the New Testament, the argument is often made that it was written by a bunch of uneducated shepherds and fishermen.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s look at the backgrounds of the Evangelists. Matthew had been a tax collector which meant he had to have knowledge of accounting and written communication. This was a position, though hated, which required a high level of education. Luke was a physician and probably wealthy and influential in his own right. Mark was the son of a wealthy land owner and a Levite, meaning he was of the priestly caste in Jewish culture who would have been well educated. John was, indeed, a fisherman. However, that meant that he was a small business owner who had to have a knowledge of accounting and trade. He also could read and write three languages as could all the other Gospel writers.
And what about Paul. God chooses the ancient equivalent of a PhD To write most of the New Testament. They may have been common men, but hardly ignorant or uneducated.
5. Do other contemporary documents confirm the facts presented?
If I have a friend who is fighting in Iraq, and he sends me an account of the battle, and then I see the same account on CNN and I read about it in the newspaper and all the accounts agree in substance, then I can assume that my friend’s letter is accurate.
Certainly, other historical documents from the writings of Josephus to those of Pliny the Younger confirm portions of the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. We will look at these in greater depth in a future lesson.
6. Is there archeological evidence confirming the documentary record?
In finding confirmation of documentary evidence, we can also look at the findings of archeology. If a battle reported in a document and then we find in the appropriate place, arrowheads, ashes, rubble and the bones of soldiers jumbled together, then we have confirmation of the written report.
While archeology cannot confirm questions of faith, it can give us a context by which to evaluate the documentary evidence. While it is beyond the scope of this particular lesson to go into depth about archeological evidences of the New Testament, suffice it to say that Biblical archeology has a remarkable track record of confirming the Biblical accounts over the years. As one archeologist put it, "If there’s a dispute between our theories and the book, I go with the book, because it is usually right."
Does anyone have the time to go through and refute all this bullshit?