The Historical Reliability of the NT

[Randy_Carson]

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – Summation

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God’s existence outweighs the evidence against God’s existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Here is that evidence.

The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).

• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
• The Telephone Game analogy and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.

The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).

Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.

The authors recorded eyewitness accounts (meaning they either were or had access to actual eyewitnesses).

• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
• John was an apostle.

The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).

• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God – a responsibility they took seriously.

The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.

The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses – both supportive and hostile.

• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.

The authors had no ulterior motive.

What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.

Additional Points for Discussion:

• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.

 

[Cheiron]

This is so much, I’m not sure where to start.

1. We don’t know who the actual authors were,
2. We don’t have manuscripts from the 1st century and only a few from the 2nd and 3rd,
3. Most of the manuscripts from the new testament came to us through copies of copies that can contain mistakes,
4. Christianity doesn’t appear on the Roman radar untill the 2nd century - and even then the Romans attack the Christian stories,
5. The accounts have probably been written for propaganda purposes, while claiming the authority of an apostle, like many other gospels that have been discovered,

But these aren’t even the most important points. What’s theologically important are the miracles that establish the reputation of Jesus as a bona fide messiah. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class, so he couldn’t claim authority that way. And that brings us to the most important point:

1. Miracles don’t jibe with the laws of nature. Virgins don’t give birth. Eclipses do not occur after passover and they don’t last for three hours. Dead people don’t rise from their grave.

I think that’s the most important bit. Because even if - according to scientific standards - everything written in the gospels, except the miracles(!), is literally true and accurate, then Christianity collapses.

 

[JurisPrudens]

**

Additional Points for Discussion:**

• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. Jesus is not a legend, and the New Testament is not a work of fiction.

Personally I think this list contains the strongest evidence.

As well as the fact that the teaching of the Apostles was so new and embarrassingly wild but, at the same time, so well explicable from the predictions of the Old Testament’s prophets.

And from the fact that people actually believed the “crazy” story of the Apostles. Which means, there was really something supernatural in that teaching.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is so much, I’m not sure where to start.

1. We don’t know who the actual authors were

Yeah, we really do. Let’s answer this question:

Who Wrote the Gospels?

While the historical reliability of the New Testament is not dependent upon knowing with certainty who the authors of the gospels were, it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

So, who wrote the gospels? Were they written by the men whose names we traditionally associate with these works within a lifetime of Jesus? Or were they written by “schools” which formed the gospels on the basis of their own traditions many decades later?

Evangelical author Dr. Craig Blomberg answers these questions in unambiguous terms:

“It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.”

Blomberg goes on to say: “There are no known competitors for these three gospels. Apparently, it was just not in dispute.”

Dr. Mary Healy, associate professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, agrees.

“[Authorship of the gospels] is a very important question. It’s something that the Church has held consistently since the beginning is that the gospels are of apostolic origin which means that they were written either by apostles or by apostolic men – meaning men who were closely associated with them – and that’s the basis on which we have a firm confidence that the gospels really do reliably tell us who Jesus Christ was, and what he did and what he taught.”

Both Blomberg and Healy offer questions which must be answered by those who deny the traditional authorship of the gospels including:

1. 
   *]Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
   *]When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
   *]Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? Or why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true?
   
   The latter question is particularly interesting today because of the popularity of “gospels” that were not included in the canon of inspired scripture. These fanciful accounts of Jesus, which were written centuries later, were commonly ascribed to more prominent members of the Early Church; thus, we have gospels according to Peter, James, Mary and Thomas among others.
   
   Apart from these logical considerations, is there any evidence that the gospels were, in fact, written by their namesakes? The answer is yes, and here we turn to the historical writings of three ancient authors, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen.
   
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Papias (d. ca. AD 100)

Little is known of the life of Papias. He may have been a hearer of the Apostle John and a companion of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Eusebius tells us that Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis and a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch. His writings are typically dated from about AD 95-125. In his preface, Papias states:

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Having conducted his research, Papias writes the following concerning Mark:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Of Matthew, Papias writes:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

**Irenaeus (AD 130-200) **

Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons and a former disciple of Polycarp. In a brief passage, Irenaeus corroborates Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew:

“Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.” (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4)

Origen (AD 185-254)

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language.” (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4)

From the foregoing arguments and ancient testimonies, we can conclude that the synoptic gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that these accounts were based on either direct or indirect eye-witness testimony.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. We don’t have manuscripts from the 1st century and only a few from the 2nd and 3rd,
2. Most of the manuscripts from the new testament came to us through copies of copies that can contain mistakes,

Are the Gospel Texts Accurate?

Many people believe that the Bible which we have today has been corrupted over time and no longer accurately reflects what the original authors wrote or intended. It is also argued that the oldest known copies of the New Testament are far too young to be of value and that they are just copies of copies of copies into which variations and errors have been mixed. The party game known as “Telephone” is cited as the classic example of how this corruption occurs.

But is this really true? Or does the modern text accurately reflect what the authors originally wrote? We’ll begin by looking at the number of texts available for study and the method scholars use to evaluate their accuracy.

A. An Embarrassment of Riches – Dating and Counting the Manuscripts

Due to the passage of time and the fragility of the materials upon which ancient books were written, scholars today are limited to studying copies of ancient works because the originals simply no longer exist. For example, Homer’s Illiad was written around 800 BC, and there are 643 copies of this illustrious work still in existence. The earliest of these copies is dated from around 400 BC. In other words, the time gap between Homer’s writing to the oldest existing copy is a gap of 400 years.

The Roman historian, Tacitus, wrote his 16-volume work, Annals of Imperial Rome, around AD 116, but only one copy of the first six volumes is still in existence; volumes seven through ten have been lost altogether, and volumes eleven through sixteen are found in a single manuscript dated from the eleventh century. In other words, the time gap between Tacitus and the oldest manuscript of those volumes is almost 1,000 years.

Similarly, there are nine Greek copies of the works of the Jewish historian, Josephus, and these copies are dated from the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries. There is also a fourth-century Latin translation and a Russian translation from the eleventh century.

This pattern could be repeated for all of the ancient authors and texts: a relatively small number of copies of the work in question exist and the oldest of these is dated centuries after the work was written. Yet, despite these challenges, serious historians have little doubt as to the accuracy of the ancient texts themselves.

So, how does the New Testament compare with these other ancient writings? Quite well. In fact, today there are 5,686 Greek New Testament manuscripts – almost ten times the number of manuscript copies of the Illiad. Additionally, there are more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and well over 8,000 manuscripts in other languages still in existence which brings the grand total to nearly 25,000 manuscripts dating from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Just as significant is the age of the oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts many of which can be dated to the middle of the second century.

Researchers have also announced the existence of a fragment of the gospel of Mark which is believed to date from the first century – though details of this fragment may not be available until 2017. The size and quality of these manuscripts is also significant; while some of these are mere fragments of papyrus containing only a few verses, others contain whole chapters of the gospels, the Book of Acts and various letters of Paul.

Dr. Harold Greenlee wrote:

The oldest known MSS of most of the Greek classical authors are dated a thousand years or more after the author’s death. The time interval for the Latin authors is somewhat less, varying down to a minimum of three centuries in the case of Virgil. In the case of the NT, however, two of the most important MSS were written within 300 years after the NT was completed and some virtually complete NT books as well as extensive fragmentary MSS of many parts of the NT date back to one century from the original writings….Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the NT is likewise assured. (Harold Greenlee, Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 16)

With thousands of manuscripts available for study – an embarrassment of riches – Dr. Greenlee concludes that the text of the New Testament itself is reliable. To understand why, it is important to consider the next step in the process: textual criticism.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

B. An Accurate Text – Textual Criticism Explained

Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I’ll call “M”. Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I’ll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I’ll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. In the following diagram, each column represents a generation. For example, M is the original, C1 a copy of M, C1a is a copy of C1, and C1a1 is a copy of C1a. Like this:

M > C1 > C1a > C1a1

Over the course of history, some copies are lost or destroyed. The copies which have not been lost are portrayed in red.

M—C1—C1a—C1a1
-------------C1b—C1b1
----------------------C1b2
-------------C1c—C1c1
----------------------C1c2
------C2—C2a—C2a1
-------------C2b—C2b1
------C3—C3a—C3a1
----------------------C3a2
-------------C3b—C3b1
-------------C3c—C3c1
----------------------C3c2
----------------------C3c3

Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I’m simplifying, of course).

We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or “typos”, if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?

So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don’t have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process, called Textual Criticism provides a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have today contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.

C. An Accurate Text – Estimates of Accuracy

Norman Geisler notes in his book A General Introduction to the Bible that the late Bruce Metzer (who taught Bart Ehrman) said that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. Geisler goes on to say,

NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations.” In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 19/20 (95 percent) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a “thousandth part of the entire text.” So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.

**Philip Schaff **estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected “an article of faith.” Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that

“In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another” (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that:
“The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

(cont.)​

 

[Randy_Carson]

Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through.

Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.

• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. As noted earlier, there are about 5700 New Testament manuscripts in existence which provide hundreds, in some cases even thousands, of confirmations of every line in the NT.

As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y’ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000

Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.”[/INDENT]

Taken from:

A Look at Bart Ehrman: Agreements and Disagreements
By Eric Chabot
M.A. Southern Evangelical Seminary, Religious Studies.
chab123.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/what-bart-ehrman-gets-right-and-wrong/

 

[Randy_Carson]

D. Debunking the Telephone Game Analogy

What do you suppose happened to the stories [about Jesus] over the years, as they were told and retold, not as disinterested news stories reported by eyewitnesses but as propaganda meant to convert people to faith, told by people who had themselves heard them fifth- or sixth- or nineteenth-hand? Did you or your kids ever play the telephone game at a birthday party? (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, pp. 146-147)

Many non-Christians object to the reliability of the New Testament, and they often reference the children’s party activity known as the “Telephone Game” as an example of how oral transmission of a message can become distorted. But is this really the principle at work in the writing of the gospels? Let’s examine the rules of the game to see how closely the game may compare with the composing of the scriptures.

Rules of the Telephone Game:

1. To play Telephone, you’ll need a group of players. More is better.
2. Choose a phrase for the team to use or let them select one themselves. Phrases should be complicated, with plenty of detail and unfamiliar words – for instance, try using a phrase such as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia.” The phrase should never be a familiar expression; these are too easy to remember.
3. Only one player should know what the phrase is.
4. The player who created or received the phrase starts the game by whispering it into the ear of another player.
5. She cannot repeat the phrase, so the second player needs to listen carefully. The second player then whispers the phrase to the third player, who whispers it to the fourth, and so on until the last player.
6. Once all players have spoken, the last player repeats the phrase. Unless everyone on the team is a very clear speaker and a very attentive listener, the phrase will have changed.
7. What began as “Mahogany tables don’t look good painted fuchsia” might end up as “Behold, any stables look good waiting on blue sand.” If you have time, go back through the players, asking each one what the original phrase was and p(name removed by moderator)ointing where the various changes occurred.

Why the Telephone Game Analogy Fails:

1. The rules of the game recommend that a group of players is needed. The reason for this is that in order for the game to be entertaining, deviation from the original phrase is desirable. In contrast, the gospel writers were not playing a game nor were they the last in a long chain of children; they were either eyewitnesses or they relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive.
2. The rules of the game suggest that the phrases should be complicated and contain unfamiliar words. In contrast, the gospel writers conveyed Jesus’ words in plain, simple language using names, places, prophetic writings and history that were familiar to their readers.
3. The rules suggest that only one player should know the original phrase. In contrast, the gospel writers had access to many eyewitnesses who could corroborate the written accounts.
4. The game begins with a single whisper. In contrast, the proclamation of the gospel began with Peter preaching openly to thousands on the day of Pentecost.
5. The game limits each player to hearing and repeating the phrase once and from one source only. In contrast, the gospel of Luke states that “many have undertaken to draw up an account” of the events he also recorded in his gospel. Additionally, many eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus were still alive and both Luke and Paul make reference to this fact in their writings. Thus, the gospel writers were recording history that both they and their audiences knew well.
6. The rules assume that not all players will speak clearly or listen attentively. In contrast, the gospel writers took great pains to reproduce what they had seen and heard faithfully and with great clarity.
7. The rules of the game suggest that it would be fun to go back to see exactly where all the changes took place. In contrast, if the gospel writers had changed or added to the accounts of Jesus’ life or to His parables that were known by oral tradition, the living witnesses would have objected strenuously to such novelties as mere fabrications.

In conclusion, the gospel writers were not children being entertained by a party game. They saw themselves as passing on the very words of God just as they had received them, and the presence of many living witnesses would ensure that each author was held accountable for reproducing the facts accurately.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Christianity doesn’t appear on the Roman radar untill the 2nd century - and even then the Romans attack the Christian stories,

Early 2nd century perhaps. Which makes their accounts pretty damn important. But you’ve overlooked a number of early non-Christian authors who reference Christianity.

**The Historical Jesus – Jewish, Roman and Pagan References

Thallus (AD 52)**

In his work of history, Julius Africanus mentions two earlier historians, Phlegon and Thallus, who in turn made references to Jesus. Thallus:

• Acknowledges that Jesus was a real person
• Confirms that Jesus was crucified
• Mentions an earthquake and darkness (possibly an eclipse) – both were said to have occurred at the time of Jesus’ death in the gospels.

Mara bar Serapion (ca. AD 73)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

• while Jesus is not named and ‘wise king’ is not a common Christological title, Jesus is doubtless meant by ‘their wise king’;
• Mara, a Jew writing to his son, speaks of this ‘wise’ Jew as a king, and ‘king [of the Jews]’ is prominently connected to Jesus at his trial (e.g. Mark 15:26);
• the link between the destruction of the Jewish nation and the death of the ‘wise king’ is parallel in Christianity to the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment for Jewish rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt 23:37-39; 24:2; 27:25; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:5-24; 23:28-31);
• the mention of ‘the new laws he laid down’ is probably a reference to the Christian religion, especially its moral code;
• Mara probably doesn’t mention Jesus directly because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews – he does not want to offend his captors, the people who hold his loved ones.

Josephus (AD 93-94)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

• this text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later ‘Christian interpolation’ but the above is the Arabic text found without these ‘Christian’ additions;
• this version leaves the question of Jesus’ messianic status neutral (“perhaps the Messiah”);
• this is another piece corroborating a ‘neutral reconstruction’ of the Testimonium (which is the preferred view among scholars);
• the neutral reconstruction, which isolates and removes the later pro-Christian interpolations, makes good sense of the pattern of ancient Christian witnesses to Josephus (e.g. Van Voorst, page 95-97).

“Upon Festus’ death, Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. But before he arrived, King Agrippa had appointed Ananus to the priesthood, who was the son of the elder Ananus [or Annas of the Gospels]. This elder Ananus, after he himself had been high priest, had five sons, all of whom achieved that office, which was unparalleled. The younger Ananus, however, was rash and followed the Sadducees, who are heartless when they sit in judgment. Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have his opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” (Antiquities XX, 197; from Josephus, Maier, page 275-276; another translation in Van Voorst, page 83)

• we have a passing but clear reference to Jesus here, and to Jesus’ brother named James (cf. Gal 1:19);
• the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words ‘the brother of Jesus called Christ’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found;
• the passage fits in well with its own context;
• a Christian ‘interpolator’ would have used laudatory language to describe James and especially Jesus, calling him ‘the Lord’ or similar language.

Only NOW do we begin to enter the second century…

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD)

“An anonymous accusatory pamphlet has been circulated containing the names of many people. I decided to dismiss any who denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your image [or statue], which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ [Christo male dicere]. I understand that no one who is really a Christian can be made to do these things. Other people, whose names were given to me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that they had stopped being Christian two or more years ago, and some more than twenty. They all venerated your image and the images of the gods as the others did, and reviled Christ. They also maintained that the sum total of this guilt or error was no more than the following: They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god [carmenque Christo quasi deo decere secum invicem]. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.” (Letter 96:10; Van Voorst, page 25)

• Christ is mentioned three times in this letter to the emperor Trajan;
• the text of the two letters (Pliny’s Letter 96, and Trajan’s reply, Letter 97) are well-attested and stable, and their authenticity is not seriously disputed;
• supposed ‘Christian interpolators’ would not have testified to Christian apostasy or speak disparagingly of Christianity calling it ‘madness’ (amentia), etc.
• Christ here is the divine leader of this religion, worshiped by Christians, so that cursing him is tantamount to rejecting Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).

Tacitus (AD 55-120)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44, AD 116)

This passage corroborates the following facts:

1. Jesus Christ existed
2. Jesus was the founder of Christianity
3. Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate
4. Christianity began in Judea
5. Christianity later spread to Rome

 

[JurisPrudens]

But these aren’t even the most important points. What’s theologically important are the miracles that establish the reputation of Jesus as a bona fide messiah. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class, so he couldn’t claim authority that way. And that brings us to the most important point:

1. Miracles don’t jibe with the laws of nature. Virgins don’t give birth. Eclipses do not occur after passover and they don’t last for three hours. Dead people don’t rise from their grave.

I think that’s the most important bit. Because even if - according to scientific standards - everything written in the gospels, except the miracles(!), is literally true and accurate, then Christianity collapses.

Hmm, so, miracles are impossible because they are impossible?

The thing is, the Christian teaching in its essence was and is really “crazy”. Rising from the dead? Impossible! But the fact that some people told that story and died for it, and thousands of others actually believed, is another evidence that the story should have been true.

Of course, one can always object that “it is in human nature to believe in crazy stories”. However, it is one thing to believe in some conspiracy theory that helps to explain the world; it is a different thing to allow such story to change your life profoundly, being ready to die for it.

Moreover, there is always supposed to be a reason why people accept a particular faith. The cargo cultists in Guinea believed that their religion could bring them material prosperity. The first LDS followers followed John Smith because he offered them a simplified version of the already existing religion of Christianity. First Muslims followed Muhammed because he brought law, order and unity. What was the motivation of the first Christians? What pushed them to compromise their standing as law-abiding Jews, to embrace with the Gentiles, to suffer persecutions - all after the example of the Messiah who allowed to crucify Himself?! What did they receive, besides the promise of the future resurrection? Not much. Which means, there must be some supernatural reason for the emergence of Christianity. The miracles of Christ and the Apostles, the logical necessity of the coming of Messiah, the fulfillment of the prophecies and moral example of the first Christians - these factors brought new converts and continue bringing them up to this day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. The accounts have probably been written for propaganda purposes, while claiming the authority of an apostle, like many other gospels that have been discovered,

The fact that some later books claimed to be the work of apostles does not prove anything with regard to the actual authorship of the canonical gospels. Moreover:

Luke was not an apostle. He was a gentile who did not know Jesus personally.
Mark was not an apostle. He was a gentile who did not know Jesus personally.
Matthew was a tax collector…a Roman collaborator…hated by the Jewish people.

Are these the sorts of “authorities” that a ghost writer would use if he is trying to get an audiences attention? :nope:

Are the gospels propaganda?

First, how could an author of the NT write false information about Jesus when (as Paul points out ) hundreds of eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time Paul was writing to the church in Corinth?

Second, what was the motivation for a Jew to declare that Jesus was God? Money? Sex? Power? If so, how were the authors actually rewarded for their troubles instead? With prison, beatings and death?

Finally, have you actually read the gospels? Do they sound like propaganda to you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

But these aren’t even the most important points. What’s theologically important are the miracles that establish the reputation of Jesus as a bona fide messiah. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class, so he couldn’t claim authority that way.

Nor did He. Jesus claimed authority from another source:

Matthew 28:18
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

By whom?

John 17
17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

And that brings us to the most important point:

1. Miracles don’t jibe with the laws of nature. Virgins don’t give birth. Eclipses do not occur after passover and they don’t last for three hours. Dead people don’t rise from their grave.

Not naturally, no.

I think that’s the most important bit. Because even if - according to scientific standards - everything written in the gospels, except the miracles(!), is literally true and accurate, then Christianity collapses.

Apart from the miracles, we have no reason to believe that Jesus was anything more than an interesting philosopher from Nazareth. Big whoop.

But when you stop to consider that miracles are possible for God, then everything that Jesus taught takes on greater importance.

So, the real problem is not that the NT mentions miracles. The real problem is that you have decided in advance that miracles do not and cannot occur, and therefore, that any testimony to the contrary must be false.

That’s not a very open-minded approach, is it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hmm, so, miracles are impossible because they are impossible?

I suppose that ruling miracles to be impossible would assume that the eternal, omnipotent God does not exist to perform those miracles. If the omnipotent God does exist then there is no a priori reason for thinking miracles could not occur.

It would seem to be engaging in unreflective question begging to insist that God could not exist because miracles could not occur.

We would have to ask whether the universe – all matter, energy, space and time – coming into existence 14.7 billion years ago would entail that matter, energy, space and time could by themselves explain the existence of the universe.

Ergo, if we want to rule out miracles, in principle, because the laws of physics which “govern” matter, energy, space and time do not permit them, we would need to prove that the laws of physics hold absolutely even “outside” the universe.

If the universe and the laws of physics which govern it are the result of something else “outside” or “beyond” matter, energy, space and time, then we have no reason to think that what is beyond matter, energy, space and time couldn’t intervene or supervene with regards to the workings of the universe, especially since that “outside” reality is, itself, what accounts for the existence of all matter, energy, space and time and the laws of physics.

There has to be a whole lot of presuming and question begging going on, metaphysically speaking, to insist that whatever caused the universe, AND all the laws that order it, to begin with couldn’t intervene or supervene on its workings after the fact.

 

[Cheiron]

Hmm, so, miracles are impossible because they are impossible?

The thing is, the Christian teaching in its essence was and is really “crazy”. Rising from the dead? Impossible! But the fact that some people told that story and died for it, and thousands of others actually believed, is another evidence that the story should have been true.

Of course, one can always object that “it is in human nature to believe in crazy stories”. However, it is one thing to believe in some conspiracy theory that helps to explain the world; it is a different thing to allow such story to change your life profoundly, being ready to die for it.

It merely proves that Christianity can change people’s lives to the point they’re willing to die for them. It doesn’t prove Christianity is true. Islam changed a lot of lives. People have died fighting for islam. Doesn’t mean islam is therefore true.

Moreover, there is always supposed to be a reason why people accept a particular faith. The cargo cultists in Guinea believed that their religion could bring them material prosperity. The first LDS followers followed John Smith because he offered them a simplified version of the already existing religion of Christianity. First Muslims followed Muhammed because he brought law, order and unity. What was the motivation of the first Christians? What pushed them to compromise their standing as law-abiding Jews, to embrace with the Gentiles, to suffer persecutions - all after the example of the Messiah who allowed to crucify Himself?! What did they receive, besides the promise of the future resurrection? Not much. Which means, there must be some supernatural reason for the emergence of Christianity. The miracles of Christ and the Apostles, the logical necessity of the coming of Messiah, the fulfillment of the prophecies and moral example of the first Christians - these factors brought new converts and continue bringing them up to this day.

Because you can’t think of a good reason, it must therefore have been supernatural. This is a complete non-sequitur. If you think there is a supernatural reason, you’ll have to provide evidence. Pointing to a lack of evidence for other arguments isn’t good enough.

First, how could an author of the NT write false information about Jesus when (as Paul points out ) hundreds of eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection were still alive at the time Paul was writing to the church in Corinth?

Resurrection is, as far as we know, impossible. Therefore those witnesses can’t possibly exist.

Second, what was the motivation for a Jew to declare that Jesus was God? Money? Sex? Power? If so, how were the authors actually rewarded for their troubles instead? With prison, beatings and death?

False hope that the messianic prophecy was fulfilled and the land would be liberated from the Romans.

Finally, have you actually read the gospels? Do they sound like propaganda to you?

Yes. There never was a census that made Jesus go to Betlehem. It’s an invention to fulfill the prophecy that the messiah comes from Betlehem. Matthew 2 proves that.

Nor did He. Jesus claimed authority from another source:

Matthew 28:18
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

By whom?

John 17
17 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

These two verses are unrelated. Also, John is far too theological and written too late to have been an eyewitness account. This is mainstream theology.

Apart from the miracles, we have no reason to believe that Jesus was anything more than an interesting philosopher from Nazareth. Big whoop.

But when you stop to consider that miracles are possible for God, then everything that Jesus taught takes on greater importance.

I disagree. The arguments of a philosopher must be judged on their own merit. It doesn’t matter if Jesus was a miracle-worker or not. For example, it doesn’t matter how many people Jesus healed, it doesn’t prove that divorce is therefore a bad thing.

So, the real problem is not that the NT mentions miracles. The real problem is that you have decided in advance that miracles do not and cannot occur, and therefore, that any testimony to the contrary must be false.

That’s not a very open-minded approach, is it?

I think natural laws, which have been discovered, described and tested with mathematical precision in the 21st century, are far more reliable than hearsay from the first century. I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

 

[Cathoholic]

Wow! Thank Randy Carson for all the “homework” done here.

I’m going to copy, paste, and keep this thread in my files as a reference source.

Good work.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Randy_Carson]

It merely proves that Christianity can change people’s lives to the point they’re willing to die for them. It doesn’t prove Christianity is true. Islam changed a lot of lives. People have died fighting for islam. Doesn’t mean islam is therefore true.

No question. :sad_yes:

People are often willing to die for what they wrongly believe. People are not so willing to die for what they know to be a lie.

If the apostles simply made the whole thing up, then they knew that it was all a lie. The apostles were willing to endure torture, prison, poverty, and even death because Jesus had appeared to them after the resurrection; they knew the resurrection to be true.

Because you can’t think of a good reason, it must therefore have been supernatural. This is a complete non-sequitur. If you think there is a supernatural reason, you’ll have to provide evidence. Pointing to a lack of evidence for other arguments isn’t good enough.

Let’s keep this simple, okay?

Habermas and Licona argue that there are five minimal facts that can be accepted about Jesus. The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including skeptics) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the +1, is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
   **2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
2. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
3. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed**
4. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

Facts 2, 3 & 4 cannot be explained way easily, and they do not actually require a supernatural cause. It is enough for us to acknowledge that the evidence reveals these three facts to be true, and from these, we can deduce that Christianity as a whole resulted from the actions of these men who were radically changed by some event.

We believe the event that changed their lives and the course of human history to be the resurrection of Jesus.

Resurrection is, as far as we know, impossible. Therefore those witnesses can’t possibly exist.

That’s not how testimony works. You have multiple eyewitnesses declaring that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. In the absence of a better explanation, it is reasonable to accept the resurrection.

False hope that the messianic prophecy was fulfilled and the land would be liberated from the Romans.

Sorry. Jesus Himself taught that this was NOT why He came. Moreover, the Jews had no concept of a resurrection like that of Jesus in their theology. Finally, the Jews were unwavering in their belief that “God is one” - and not a trinity.

Yes. There never was a census that made Jesus go to Betlehem. It’s an invention to fulfill the prophecy that the messiah comes from Betlehem. Matthew 2 proves that.

False. There was a census at this time and this fact has been explained repeatedly on Internet sites. Do some homework.

These two verses are unrelated. Also, John is far too theological and written too late to have been an eyewitness account. This is mainstream theology.

I’m happy to be mainstream when it means I’m correct. Jesus said, “For you [Father] granted [me] authority over all people”. Which corrects your previous error.

As for John being written “too late”, John was a “young man” (late teens?) at the time of the resurrection (AD 30). It would not be unreasonable for him to write his gospel around AD 90 when he would have been near 80 years of age.

I disagree. The arguments of a philosopher must be judged on their own merit. It doesn’t matter if Jesus was a miracle-worker or not. For example, it doesn’t matter how many people Jesus healed, it doesn’t prove that divorce is therefore a bad thing.

If Jesus performed miracles as evidence that he is God, then His teaching is that of God. And He specifically pointed out that these miracles were given so that we might know that He had come from the Father.

John 10:30-39
30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

I think natural laws, which have been discovered, described and tested with mathematical precision in the 21st century, are far more reliable than hearsay from the first century. I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

Science grew out of man’s belief that a rational God had created a world that could be understood according to laws that could be discovered. You have theists who believed in a rational lawgiver to thank for that.

Your inability to think objectively about the gospels is betrayed in your words. The gospels are not “hearsay”; they are eyewitness testimony.

However, how does science discover, describe, and test that which is above the natural?

It cannot.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow! Thank Randy Carson for all the “homework” done here.

I’m going to copy, paste, and keep this thread in my files as a reference source.

Good work.

God bless.

Cathoholic

:tiphat:

I recommend Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace. He has a great website, also.

 

[Cheiron]

No question. :sad_yes:

People are often willing to die for what they wrongly believe. People are not so willing to die for what they know to be a lie.

If the apostles simply made the whole thing up, then they knew that it was all a lie. The apostles were willing to endure torture, prison, poverty, and even death because Jesus had appeared to them after the resurrection; they knew the resurrection to be true.

I think it’s more likely the apostles were mistaken or the gospels are lying than that people come back from the dead.

…]

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
   **2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
2. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
3. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed**
4. Jesus tomb was found to be empty

Facts 2, 3 & 4 cannot be explained way easily, and they do not actually require a supernatural cause. It is enough for us to acknowledge that the evidence reveals these three facts to be true, and from these, we can deduce that Christianity as a whole resulted from the actions of these men who were radically changed by some event.

We believe the event that changed their lives and the course of human history to be the resurrection of Jesus.

And I believe differently. Unless we have evidence, this probably won’t ever be resolved.

That’s not how testimony works. You have multiple eyewitnesses declaring that they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. In the absence of a better explanation, it is reasonable to accept the resurrection.

No, we don’t. We have a biased source, Paul, claiming there are hundreds of eyewitnesses. None of these eyewitnesses left any documents.

Sorry. Jesus Himself taught that this was NOT why He came. Moreover, the Jews had no concept of a resurrection like that of Jesus in their theology. Finally, the Jews were unwavering in their belief that “God is one” - and not a trinity.

This is false. The belief in a resurrection and the coming of the Messiah was widespread. Josephus and Celsus both note there were a lot of false messiah’s wandering around at the time. Josephus notes in “The War of the Jews” that an Egyptian claimed to be a prophet and led a revolt. The Egyptian also features in Acts 21:38, when Paul is asked if he is the Egyptian. The Christian apologist Origen also acknowledged this fact.

False. There was a census at this time and this fact has been explained repeatedly on Internet sites. Do some homework.

No, you should do homework. This census never happened. And please use a more credible source than the internet. New testament scholars for example.

I’m happy to be mainstream when it means I’m correct. Jesus said, “For you [Father] granted [me] authority over all people”. Which corrects your previous error.

As for John being written “too late”, John was a “young man” (late teens?) at the time of the resurrection (AD 30). It would not be unreasonable for him to write his gospel around AD 90 when he would have been near 80 years of age.

The gospel of John clearly makes Jesus into a god, which is less apparent in the synoptic gospels which came earlier.

If Jesus performed miracles as evidence that he is God, then His teaching is that of God. And He specifically pointed out that these miracles were given so that we might know that He had come from the Father.

John 10:30-39
30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Even if Jesus was God, then that still wouldn’t prove his teachings were moral.

Science grew out of man’s belief that a rational God had created a world that could be understood according to laws that could be discovered. You have theists who believed in a rational lawgiver to thank for that.

I know. And I love the irony that science has pushed back religion so much.

Your inability to think objectively about the gospels is betrayed in your words. The gospels are not “hearsay”; they are eyewitness testimony.

Did you read that on the internet too? Because my late uncle was a theologian and I spoke with him and his friends from university about these matters. Not a single one of them believed that the gospels were eyewitness accounts. I prefer to believe people who have studies these matters.

However, how does science discover, describe, and test that which is above the natural?

It cannot.

That is right. In fact, no one can. The ‘method’ of revelation fails, because, as Hume says, revelation is revelation to the first person only and for everyone else it’s hearsay.