Contending for Easter is an 8-day (8-part) series of blog essays/articles published by members of the Canadian Apologetics Coalition. Each article makes a brief case for the truthfulness and historicity of Christian belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection. Yesterday's article (access here), finely-authored by Tim Barnett of ClearThinkingChristianity, argued that (a) the resurrection lies at the very center of Christian faith and belief; and (b) the resurrection is a historically testable event open to rational investigation and scrutiny.
Today's article (Monday, March 25, 2013) is authored by yours truly. I make a (very) brief case for the general historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. If the Gospels are not trustworthy (in general) as historically-informative documents, then it will be difficult to ascertain anything noteworthy about the post-mortem fate of Jesus of Nazareth. I hope the article is helpful on some level, and that you continue to follow the entire series of essays.
 |
Contending for Easter, Part II - The Gospel Truth: Or Is It?
Are the New Testament Gospels Historically Reliable?
In
the 1980s, the Jesus Seminar argued that the vast majority of words attributed
to Jesus in the Gospels do not actually originate in Jesus. They argue that the Gospels are unreliable,
theologically-colored texts. If the
Jesus Seminar is correct, it will be difficult to build a historical case for
the resurrection of Jesus. After all, our
knowledge about what happened to Jesus after His arrest stems primarily from
the New Testament Gospels, as even the Jesus Seminar affirms. If our knowledge of Jesus’s fate derives from
the Gospels, then it is certainly important to know whether we can trust what
the Gospels say—whether the Gospels can and do contain accurate biographies of
Jesus’ life and ministry. To that end, I
am going to suggest five lines of evidence which give us strong reason to believe
that the Gospels aim to and actually deliver an accurate historical record.
1. The Gospels Claim to Contain Eyewitness
Testimony
First,
the New Testament Gospels present themselves as containing eyewitness testimony.
“Many
have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled
among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the
word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have
been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4) Notice the emphases that Luke makes. First, his account accords with that of those
who were eyewitnesses. Second, Luke has
carefully investigated the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. What does that look like? Well, it involves Luke talking to the people who were
actually eyewitnesses of the events he narrates. Why does Luke alone give us the birth of
Jesus from Mary’s perspective? I suggest
it’s because Luke alone talks to Mary
to get her account to include in his gospel.
Finally, he presents his Gospel as an orderly, historical account of
Jesus’ life.[1]
Based
on passages like Luke 1, most scholars acknowledge that the Gospels claim to present eyewitness accounts of
Jesus of Nazareth.[2]
Admittedly,
all this provides is a claim to be
eyewitness testimony.
2. The Early Date of the Gospels
Second,
the Gospels is that they were written relatively close to the time of the
events which they relate (especially in comparison to other ancient historical
sources). Most scholars agree that Mark was
written between A.D. 50-65, Matthew and Luke between A.D. 60-85; and then John
around A.D. 95. When the New Testament
Gospels were written and began to circulate, there would still have been numerous
people alive who had seen and heard Jesus.
The
Gospels are early enough to contain authentic eyewitness testimony—and by
correlation, they were written early enough to have aroused opposition and
contradictory testimony if they were not accurate. Not only friends, but also foes of Christianity were around to
counter false presentations. We have
record of Jewish leaders circulating the report that the disciples of Jesus
stole his body from the tomb. We also
have record of Jews and Romans arguing that Jesus performed miracles because he
was a sorcerer. But we have NO
non-Christian argument in those early decades (and even centuries) that Jesus
did not perform the miracles that he
is reported to have performed. This is
hugely significant – it indicates that the Gospels were most likely telling the
truth about what Jesus said and did, so that no one could dispute their accounts.
3. The Church Has Always Recognized the
Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Third,
the Christian Church universally has acknowledged the Gospels as reliable. From the first century, Christians have
recognized Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as historical records. We have accounts as early as Papias in the 1st
century affirming the reliable eyewitness accounts contained within the
canonical Gospels. By 170 AD, Irenaeus
of Lyons can refer simply and authoritatively to “The Four Gospels,” comparing
them to the four winds of heaven. Simply
put, within 100 years, there was an established tradition within Christendom
recognizing four, and only four, canonical Gospels as authoritative, reliable
sources about Jesus of Nazareth. Our
early testimony is unanimous and affirming – the Gospels are trustworthy.[3] There is a lack of dissenting opinion. It is, in my opinion, the height of
chronological snobbery to insist that we can know better, 2000 years later,
what really happened in the 1st
century than the people who were around then.
So, we have the universal church recognition of the historical
reliability of the canonical Gospels.
4. The Internal Evidence of the Gospels.
Fourth,
the Gospels contain a plethora of incidental details which are best explained
by eyewitness testimony.
John
5:1-5 – “Some time later, Jesus went up
to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews.
Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic
is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used
to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed.
One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.” As the narrative proceeds, Jesus heals the
man, on the Sabbath Day, creating a ruckus amongst the Pharisees. But notice the details contained within
John’s account. How long has the man
been an invalid? Precisely 38 years – an
incidental detail which adds nothing to the story, but supports eyewitness
knowledge of the event. Where is the man
healed? Notice that John provides the
exact name of the Gate and pool, and even the number of surrounding covered
colonnades.
Skilled
authors can bring you to the place of their writing, bringing to life in your
imagination the view, the smell, the sights and sounds of the story. That is precisely what John is doing here –
he is bringing the story to life, giving us the details which allow us to picture
it in our own minds.
5. The External Evidence for the Gospels (The
Discipline of Archaeology)
Fifth,
archaeological discoveries verify the reliability of many details within the
Gospels.
For
years, critical scholars rejected the eyewitness standing of John 5 on the
basis that the name of the gate was not empirically verified, and the
identification of five surrounding colonnades was structurally unlikely and,
again, not verified through archaeological discoveries. There is a methodological problem with their
argument. Archaeology can confirm biblical data, but it is difficult
for archaeology to disprove biblical
claims. All that the absence of
archaeological evidence for the Sheep Gate and five colonnades demonstrated was
that so far as our limited archaeological
evidence demonstrated, we could not confirm these historical details. That does not prove that John was making things up, or wrong, or lying – just
that we cannot confirm that John is right!
Eventually,
archaeological discoveries verified the identity and name of the Sheep Gate by
the Pool of Bethesda, as well as the presence of five porticos, or colonnades,
there. What used to lack empirical,
archaeological verification now has it.
Again, this demonstrates the futility of trying to draw conclusions of
biblical inaccuracy from the limited and incomplete archaeological record. What currently lacks verification may well
receive verification from future archaeological discoveries. Anyway, John 5 is simply one of dozens of
details in the New Testament Gospels that have been confirmed through
inscriptions and structures uncovered in archaeological digs.
We
have briefly surveyed five reasons to treat the Gospels as trustworthy
historical records.[4] This argument does not establish the truth of
everything contained within the Gospels; it merely establishes that the Gospels
must be taken seriously, as intentionally historical records that both intend
to and are capable of presenting us with a factual account of the life,
ministry, death, and fate of Jesus of Nazareth.
With that in mind, we can carry on to consider whether the account of
Jesus’ resurrection has any merit.
[1] See also John 20:30-31; John 21:24-25.
[2] See further Richard Bauckham, Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008).
[3] It should be acknowledged that you do have the dissenting voice of Marcion, an early gnostic heretic,
who insisted that only Luke’s Gospels was reliable. Marcion also rejected the testimony of the
entire Old Testament, and all other New Testament documents except Paul’s
letters.
[4] For further reading, see, e.g., F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels;
Craig Keener, The Historical Jesus of the
Gospels.
The following blog posts will be released on the dates leading up to Easter 2013:
Contending for Easter: Putting It All On The Line [PART 1]
By Tim Barnett | Sunday, March 24th
By Tim Barnett | Sunday, March 24th
Tim Barnett (BSc, BEd) is a high school science teacher and the founder of Clear Thinking Christianity. His passion is to train Canadian Christians--both young and old--to think clearly about their Christian convictions because Christianity is worth think about. God willing, Tim will start his MA in Philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary this fall. Website: www.clearthinkingchristianity.com
Contending for Easter: The Gospel Truth: Or Is It? [PART 2]
By Tawa Anderson | Monday, March 25th
By Tawa Anderson | Monday, March 25th
Tawa Anderson was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta, where he earned his BA in Political Science at the U of A (1997), and his MDiv from Edmonton Baptist Seminary (2000). He served as English pastor at Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church from 2001-2008 before returning to school to earn his PhD in Philosophy, Apologetics & Worldview from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky). Tawa now serves as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Oklahoma Baptist University (Shawnee, Oklahoma), and returns regularly to Canada to preach, teach, and visit family and friends. Person blog:www.tawapologetics.blogspot.com
Contending for Easter: They Sought To Kill Him, But Did They Succeed? [PART 3]
By Paul Buller | Tuesday, March 26th
By Paul Buller | Tuesday, March 26th
Paul enjoys discussing and teaching on philosophy of science, philosophy of ethics and theology among other related topics. He is an engineer, husband and father of two. He is the author of Arguing with Friends: Keeping Your Friends and Your Convictions.
Website: www.whyjesus.ca
Contending for Easter: The Unlikely Undertaker [PART 4]
By Kelly Madland | Wednesday, March 27th
By Kelly Madland | Wednesday, March 27th
Kelly Madland is a wife, mom, and community apologist who has hosted a local
apologetics conference called 'Thinking Clearly About God' in Kamloops. She has been leading a bible study on campus at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. She is also a part of the Ratio Christi Canada development team, and is looking forward to completing her Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics in 2014. Personal blog: www.thinkclearly.ca
Contending for Easter: Come, See Where He Lay [PART 5]
By Justin Wishart | Thursday, March 28th
By Justin Wishart | Thursday, March 28th
Justin Wishart is the general editor and blogger for Faith Beyond Belief and lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He is most interested in issues surrounding Christian philosophy, particularly epistemology and early Christian thought. Justin is a husband and a father. He currently works as a mechanic and enjoys many hobbies such as camping, hiking, and creating music. Website: www.faithbeyondbelief.ca
Contending for Easter: Seeing is Believing [PART 6]
By Stephen J. Bedard | Friday, March 29th
By Stephen J. Bedard | Friday, March 29th
Stephen J. Bedard (MDiv, MTh, MA, DMin (cand.)) is the director of Hope's Reason Ministries and an instructor at Emmanuel Bible College and Tyndale University College. Website: www.hopesreason.com
Contending for Easter: How To Turn A Skeptic Into A Believer [PART 7]
By David Haines | Saturday, March 30th
By David Haines | Saturday, March 30th
David Haines was born and raised in Ontario, Canada. He holds a BTh from Covington Theological Seminary and an MA in Philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at University Laval. Personal blog is: www.philosopherdhaines.blogspot.ca. Website: www.associationaxiome.ca
Contending for Easter: Why Canadians Still Need Easter [PART 8]
By Jojo Ruba | Sunday, March 31st
By Jojo Ruba | Sunday, March 31st
Jojo Ruba is committed to equipping Christians to be good ambassadors for Christ. He does this as a youth pastor with Faith Builder International Church in Calgary as well as a public speaker and executive director of Faith Beyond Belief. His experiences speaking at public forums, university debates and in Christian settings have helped him understand how we can better communicate the truth of the gospel. Through Faith Beyond Belief, Jojo shares solid tools to help Christians engage their culture with compassion but without compromise. Website: www.faithbeyondbelief.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment