|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Are The Gospels Reliable?
« Back to club forum| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 09:35 |
 Are The Gospels Reliable?From reasonsforjesus.com: The general reliability of the gospels is the claim that the gospel biographical texts, which constitute the primary sources for the ministry of the historical Jesus Christ and some of the earliest events preceding the founding of the Church, are historically reliable, and that this view can be arrived at through historical methods. Historian Gary Habermas explains that, “These arguments are typically based on the quantity, quality, and early date of the available New Testament manuscript copies, additional considerations that favor the traditional authorship of the books, plus extra-biblical confirmation, along with a few archaeological discoveries.” This method approaches the gospels (of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) as historical texts in the same way the historian would approach any other ancient document. It does not privilege the gospels as inspired Scripture (as do Christian readers), nor does it throw them out because one dislikes its message (as do many skeptics). Instead, one typically intends to show the reliability of the gospels on historical grounds. Importantly, this approach is not devoid of meeting certain interpreter interests. In the case of Christians, apologists will attempt to demonstrate the general reliability of the gospels as a means to authenticate the Christian religion, primarily through highlighting evidential weight in favour of the gospels most central episode: the resurrection of Christ. Nonetheless, as Habermas noted, there are several arguments usually posited in favour of the proposition that the gospels are generally reliable. The Gospels as Historical Sources It is clear that almost all historians within New Testament studies and other relevant fields (i.e. Greco-Roman history, classical history etc.) hold that the gospels provide historical information that can be used to reconstruct objective history. To what degree they do will certainly differ depending on which historian one decides to ask. However, that the gospels are devoid of historical value or that they are entirely legendary and mythical is a view no longer held within scholarship. Instead, the gospels are treated as valuable historical documents on the ministry of Christ. Scholar Bart Ehrman explains that, “If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple.” Biblical scholar Richard Burridge says that when the gospels are, “judged by the criteria of the 1st century and I think they are pretty reliable documents. They share essentially the same story of Jesus’ public ministry, his teaching, his preaching, his activity, his healing and the events of the week leading to his death – and the fact that something very odd happened afterwards.” Some of the reasons below will demonstrate why scholars have reasoned to these conclusions. The Gospel Genre The genre of a historical text is important. If an author intended to write romantic fiction it would be different to if he had selected to write historical biography. That the gospels are ancient biographies is an important point to take into account concerning their purposes. Scholar James Dunn says that “it has become clearer that the Gospels are in fact very similar in type to ancient biographies.” Graham Stanton agrees: “the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies.” According to New Testament professor Craig Keener: “Most Gospel scholars today—not all, but most—see the Gospels as biographies.” There are several reasons why the gospels are biographical. Firstly, the authors aimed to portray their subject’s character by narrating his words and deeds, a standard motivation behind a biography. Further, despite that the gospel authors possessed agendas for writing (which is the case for all authors), they still decided to adopt Greco-Roman biographical conventions in order to explain the story of Christ. This suggests that they wished to convey what really happened to him. These are just some reasons why the “Gospels are a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of ‘lives,’ that is, biographies.” The Transmission Process The transmission process of the gospel documents is generally reliable given historical standards. The time in which Christ lived there were no printing presses, so documents needed to be hand-copied by scribes onto manuscripts, which would then be kept. This was a common need if ancients wished to keep records of what they felt was important to them and wished for others to read. One of the charges leveled at a transmission process such as this is something like the “game of telephone.” According to this, a single message is introduced to someone on one end of a chain/line of people, and at the end of it being handed down via the chain, the message which comes out bears no resemblance to what it was at the beginning. In other words, the message became corrupted somewhere within the chain, and the corruption of the original message also purportedly applies to the process of manuscript transmission of the New Testament/Gospels. It posits that there was an original message perhaps on the earliest manuscript(s), and that over time, as it was copied and handed on (from one scribe to the next set of scribes and copyists), it was corrupted, and that this corruption is what we have in our final form (i.e. in the gospels as they are now printed in the New Testament that Christians read). This final form is nothing like the original message. However, there is reason to doubt this scenario on the grounds that the transmission of New Testament/gospel manuscripts, as it occurred over time, was vastly unlike the evolution and corruption of a message one finds in the game of telephone. The ultimate advantage the New Testament/Gospel manuscripts have is that in rather than being transmitted by a single, sole chain (like in the game of telephone) there are multiple chains of transmission. For instance, the original gospel manuscript was copied, and that copy was copied by several scribes, and then that copy was further copied by more several scribes, and so on, until we possess many thousands of these manuscript copies. This functions as valuable means of comparison, and by comparing them together the textual critic can arrive at a good idea concerning the content the original manuscript would have contained. The result has been successful because textual critics have been able to identify what words, sentences, and paragraphs were in the earliest manuscripts, and what was likely added later by a scribe for some other purpose. A good example is the ending to Mark’s gospel (the portion running from 16:9 until 16:20) which is not in the earliest manuscripts and was almost certainly added by a later scribe, possibly in the early 2nd century. The result is that many mainstream Bible translations include footnotes acknowledging the possible lack of originality of these verses. A further reason to doubt the game of telephone analogy involves the nature of transmission itself: oral versus textual. Oral transmission, at least in the version of the game of telephone, seems to have a lack of control (i.e. someone later in the chain cannot access the message at an earlier stage) whereas by the very nature of copying manuscripts such control and access would be possible. It is not unlikely that the original manuscript, if not the earliest of them, was available to later scribes copying its contents. The result is access to earlier manuscripts and their earlier message, allowing scribes to double check their own copies if needs be. Finally, unlike the game of telephone, largely deemed a lighthearted game for children, the scribes of New Testament/Gospel manuscripts were serious about their task. It is not unlikely that they (most of them at least) would have attempted to be accurate as a result. Also important to note is that no textual critic believes the New Testament/Gospel manuscripts to be error free. Like any other ancient set of manuscripts, they possess minor transmission errors. These include, but may not be limited to, occasionally miscopied numbers, incorrect spelling of names, or garbled copying of words, and so on. These are often innocent mistakes likely due to a lapse in concentration or because of some other natural phenomena (i.e. poor lighting). According to Ehrman, “of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.” Wallace writes similarly: “The vast majority of them are quite inconsequential. And less than 1 percent of all textual variants both affect the meaning of that verse (though none affects a core doctrine) and have some plausibility of authenticity.” Although Ehrman notes the insignificance of these textual changes one might be concerned with his claim of “hundreds of thousands” of these changes. Are our manuscripts so error-ridden? What might strike one as a surprise, however, is that the more textual changes one has in the manuscripts the better, simply because it means textual critics have more manuscripts in number to work with in order to reconstruct the original message. The fewer the manuscripts the fewer changes; the greater number of manuscripts the more changes. The latter scenario is preferable because the rule of thumb is the more manuscripts to work with the merrier. If Wallace’s 1% figure is to be believed, it would claim that one is able to trust 99% of what she finds in the gospels as representative of the original manuscripts. This is not impossible, but other textual critics have posited a slightly lower statistic often ranging from around 96 to 98%. Either way, it’s usually in the high 90s range. That one can reason to this fairly strong conclusion is because of the sheer number of manuscript copies textual critics have to work with, which allows them to contrast and compare, and therefore catch transmissional changes, errors, and distortions whenever they occur. It seems then that the transmission of the New Testament/Gospel manuscripts is quite reliable, and that this position is warranted in the absence of a reasonable doubt. As noted, no-one claims the process to be perfect, but the claim is that it is reliable enough to allow readers of the gospels to be fairly certain that what they hold in their hands is very close to what the original gospel authors would have written. Manuscript Attestation As noted above one can have confidence that we have a good idea of what the original documents from our New Testament said in light of the great number of manuscript copies we have. It is true that we do not possess the originals of the New Testament so trying to reconstruct them is an important task for the historian. It has been shown that the vast amount of copies we have at our disposal is quite impressive. We have over 5,000 copies in the original language of Greek with 19,000 other copies in Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. It is true that such a number, the 5,000 Greek manuscripts, outstrips what we have for our other ancient Jewish, Roman and Greek literature. For example, for Caesar’s Gallic War (written somewhere between 50 and 58 BCE) we have only 10 decent manuscripts, of which the earliest is some 800 years removed from his life. The History of Thucydides (5th century BCE) only comes down to historians in eight manuscripts. The earliest copy comes in around 900 CE (although a few small fragments date to the Christian era), some 1300 years later. Arguably the next best-preserved work besides the Bible is that of the Iliad, a work by Homer, that boasts some 650 copies with the earliest dating 1000 years after the original. Compared to these other ancient texts how does the New Testament fair? Our earliest extant fragments for Matthew’s gospel (general consensus puts Matthew at 80 CE) date between 150 and 250 CE, a large fragment from Mark (consensus is 70 CE) is dated to around 250 CE, and several large fragments from Luke (consensus is 80 CE) date to between 175 and 250 CE. Our earliest fragment of John’s gospel (95 CE) is the small P52. P52 is dated to 125 CE and is our earliest fragment of any New Testament text. Several other fragments of John’s gospel date after P52 and no later than 250 CE. Beyond our gospels several fragments of the book of Acts (consensus is 80 CE) are dated to the early 200s CE. The fragments for the rest of our New Testament documents range from 150 to 350 CE. Further, the first complete books of the New Testament date to around 200 CE, while the first complete copy of the entire New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 300s CE. Bearing in mind that our entire New Testament was completed no later than 95 CE this leaves a gap of over 200 years before our entire first extant copy. Many fragments date earlier than that. With these dates and manuscripts in mind we are dealing with a negligible time gap in comparison to other major texts of ancient history. Gary Habermas reveals the importance of this, “What is usually meant is that the New Testament has far more manuscript evidence from a far earlier period than other classical works. There are just under 6,000 NT manuscripts, with copies of most of the NT dating from just 100 years or so after its writing. Classical sources almost always have less than 20 copies each and usually date from 700-1400 years after the composition of the work. In this regard, the classics are not as well attested. While this doesn’t guarantee truthfulness, it means that it is much easier to reconstruct the New Testament text. Regarding genre, the Gospels are usually taken today to be examples of Roman biographies.” Scholar Frederick Bruce claims that, “the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning… It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.” Early Source Materials of the Gospels and the New Testament The entire New Testament dates prior to the end of the first century. Christ died around 30 CE, and most scholars date the gospels from 70 to 95 CE whereas the Apostle Paul’s letters date earlier from the 50s onward. This means that historians are in possession of is first-century testimony to the life of Christ and the origins of the Christian movement. One can appreciate this when we note that what we know about Alexander the Great (died 323 BCE) depends on biographies written by Arrian and Plutarch in the first and second centuries, several centuries after Alexander’s life. Christ stacks fairly well when compared to other major religious figures. For the Buddha, historians are dealing with materials at least four centuries removed and more. For the Prophet Muhammad, the earliest biographies only come in 150 to 200 years later, and for Confucius, it’s about a century. All considered, a gap of 40 to 60 years for Christ is not very large. Scholar Michael Bird agrees and says that the source materials for Christ are early in “comparison to other historical figures.” New Testament cholars have also demonstrated that they can actually get back earlier than 70 CE mark when they take into consideration creeds and the traditions behind our gospels, such as Q, L, and M, and possible eyewitness testimony (see pre-Mark). Historians are dealing with first-century testimony attesting to Christ, which means that the data did not evolve over several centuries as one might find with legendary figures. In many cases, when the traditions on Christ were in circulation or being preserved by the Christian community, this was often in the time of the eyewitnesses and the first and second generations of Christians. Craig Keener explains that “Gospel materials written within four decades of Jesus’ execution therefore provide a remarkably special opportunity for early insight into Jesus’ ministry,” and as a result we are dealing with “substantive historical information.” Archaeological Corroboration A final premise supporting the general reliability of the gospels is that in many places where they can be tested archeologically they pass the empirical test. This is even the case when one considers the latest gospel, the Gospel of John (90 CE), which Professor Kruger says has “been tested and found to be very accurate,” and that the author of “John exhibits impressive knowledge of the places where the events of Jesus’ life took place.” The Gospel of Luke too demonstrates accurate knowledge of influential and political people of his time, many of whom can be found in non-biblical sources. Scholar Bruce claims that “One of the most remarkable tokens of Luke’s accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned.” Archaeology has also been kind towards other gospel traditions. Craig Evans says that “where they [gospels] can be [archaeologically] tested, we find they are talking about real people, real events, real things that we can unearth.” He goes on to say that the gospels talk “about real people, real events, real places, and the archaeologist can show that…” Empirical evidence has thus increased many historians’ confidence in the gospel documents. The discovery of a first-century boat matches the description of the one Christ and his disciples allegedly used to cross the sea, a synagogue that Christ went to was uncovered, as were many other sites, and even conditions such as first-century leprosy have been corroborated. Historian Paul Johnson concludes that “Historians note that mounting evidence from archaeology confirms rather than contradicts the accounts of Jesus.” Professor of archaeology Millar Burrows says that, “On the whole archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.” Although archaeological corroboration does not prove that the narratives within the documents are authentic, they can be taken, with what else we have considered above, as a signpost pointing in that direction. Empirical corroboration suggests that the gospel authors were talking about real people that lived, places that existed (and still exist), and events that likely happened. If it were the opposite of this in that the authors spoke of legendary people and locations that we know did not exist, then historians would have a reason to be more cautious about the documents. Concluding Remarks Having looked at several premises it seems that the gospel accounts satisfy the criteria historians use to measure the reliability of most documents of ancient history. It seems that by these measures the gospels, our primary sources for the ministry of Christ, can be trusted as generally reliable. This conclusion is supported by a multilayered and multi-dimensional transmission process, numerous manuscripts, some of which are early, the early date of the gospels in proximity to the life of Christ (at least compared to other important ancient figures), and archaeological discoveries that place the gospels and the ministry of Christ in time and space. reasonsforjesus.com My only quibble with this article is the conclusion that the end of the Gospel of Mark likely was added later. Here is a commentary that presents both sides and ultimately disputes that the end of the Gospel of Mark (chapter 16, verses 9 through 20) was added later. From enduringword.com: B. Preface to Mark 16:9-20: Do these verses belong in our Bible? 1. In many Bibles, this last portion of the Gospel of Mark is footnoted in some way, indicating that it did not exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the gospel of Mark. This troubles some Christians regarding the reliability of God’s Word. They wonder if this passage belongs in our Bible. 2. The argument against including Mark 16:9-20 in our Bibles. a. The two oldest existing Greek manuscripts (dated from 325 and 340 A.D.) do not contain this section and neither do about 100 other ancient manuscripts translated into other languages. A few ancient manuscripts put asterisks next to Mark 16:9-20 to indicate that it is an addition to the original text. b. According to their writings, almost all the Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius (who died in 339) and Jerome (who died in 419) did not have these verses. c. In a few other manuscripts there are two other endings – one shorter, one with some additions. d. About one-third of the vocabulary is totally different from the rest of the Gospel of Mark and there is a very awkward grammatical transition between Mark 16:8 and 16:9. e. Most contemporary scholars reject these verses as original. 3. The argument for including Mark 16:9-20 in our Bibles. a. Many very early Christian writers refer to this passage in their writings. This shows that the early Christians knew about this passage in the Gospel of Mark and accepted it as genuine. · Papias refers to Mark 16:18. He wrote around A.D. 100. · Justin Martyr’s first Apology quoted Mark 16:20 (A.D. 151). · Irenaus in Against Heresies quoted Mark 16:13 and remarked on it (A.D. 180). · Hippolytus in Peri Charismaton quoted Mark 16:18 and 19. In his homily on the heresy of Noetus, he refers to Mark 16:19. He wrote while he was Bishop of Portus (A.D. 190-227). · Vicentius, Bishop of Thibari, quoted from 2 of the verses in the 7th Council of Carthage held under Cyprian (A.D. 256). Augustine, a century and a half later, in his reply, recited the words again. · The apocryphal Acts of Pilate contains Mark 16:15-18 (thought to be written in the somewhere around A.D. 200). · The Apostolic Constitutions clearly allude to 16:15 in two places and quote Mark 16:16 outright (thought to be written somewhere in the late third century or the early fourth century). b. The overwhelming majority of ancient manuscripts do include this passage. 4. Thoughts on the problem of including or not including this passage. a. It is highly unlikely that the Gospel of Mark ended so abruptly at Mark 16:8, with the women simply being afraid but seeing no concrete evidence of the resurrected Jesus, only of an empty tomb. However, it is possible that the original ending of Mark’s gospel was lost rather early. i. Noted Greek scholar A.T. Robertson wrote, “It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with verse 8 unless he was interrupted. A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll.” b. But importantly, the earliest testimony we presently have, from writers like Irenaeus and others, argues that the earliest Christians accepted Mark 16:9-20 as genuine. enduringword.com |
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 10:46 |
From defendinginerrancy.com Are the Gospels reliable? The answer to this question is an unqualified, firm YES! The Gospels are the very unique treasure bequeathed as an enduring testimony from the first-century church to the rest of mankind, leaving an unfailing historical record that God loved the whole world and demonstrated His love by sending his Son to save mankind from alienation to Him (John 3:16-18). The four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John—are unique historical accounts set apart from ancient history writing. No historical ancient account is like them or comparable. How so? Today, classical scholars recognize ancient historians of the past, especially during the Greek and Greek era, often admitted to writing about history and events that they were not eyewitnesses to (Thucydides, Plutarch). None of them was truly accurate in details that they reported. Indeed, they even acknowledge that in the writing of their records they invented speeches of main characters, and created out of thin air things about characters they wrote about to make these people larger than life. No ancient human historian can ever measure up to the record that the Gospel writers left as a witness to Jesus’s life as they were empowered by God’s “Spirit of Truth.” The Testimony of the Very Early Church as to the Reliability of the Canonical Gospels Many factors affirm the absolute reliability of the Gospels. At the outset, one must know that the consistent testimony of the early church in the beginning centuries of its existence stands as a firm, inviolable witness to the absolute truthfulness, accuracy, and reliability of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, especially the four Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. Importantly, the testimony of the early church stands in direct contradiction to the negative, modern criticism of the Gospels that developed so much later in the eighteenth century to the twenty-first century. What can we learn when we examine these early church records? Those who lived closest to the time of Jesus knew with certainty of the assuredness of the Gospel record. What can we learn from this early Christian testimony? First, the four canonical Gospels - Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John - were unanimously affirmed by the earliest orthodox or “catholic” Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire, wherever Christianity had spread, as thoroughly investigated, wholly undisputed, and never doubted in any manner. The first great church historian, Eusebius (ca. AD 260-341), as well as many other very early church fathers, leave us a thrilling record about the genuineness of the Gospels from which the church derives its information. Eusebius called the four canonical Gospels “the holy four Gospels” that were never once doubted by anyone whatsoever in the orthodox church as coming from the Apostles whose names they bore. The early fathers knew that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Levi the tax collector; that Mark, the companion and interpreter of Peter, took Peter’s preaching and made it into the Gospel that bears Mark’s name; that Luke, Paul’s personal traveling companion as seen in the “we” sections of Acts (e.g Acts16:10-18; ), composed a two-part series known as Luke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4); and John the Apostle wrote the Gospel that bears his name. Eusebius tells us that an unbroken chain of custody in the early church, just like modern legal forensics, consisting of orthodox bishops throughout the entire Roman world, from the AD first to the fourth centuries, affirmed these four Gospels, and only these four Gospels, as genuinely from the men whose names they bore. Second, from the earliest times (AD 125), these Gospels, while anonymous in their text, actually bore titles on all their manuscripts, “The Gospel according to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” “The Gospel According to Luke,” “The Gospel According to John.” No other names ever appeared on any manuscripts. From the earliest beginnings, the orthodox church was very, very careful to guard these four Gospels as the only true witnesses to Jesus’ life. They firmly rejected all other gospels as false, so that the anonymous nature of these four Gospels are actually a strong testimony to those whose names they bear. The earliest fathers authoritatively quoted these four Gospels, demonstrating their unwavering belief in the full trustworthiness and accuracy of these four Gospel records of Jesus’s life. About these four Gospels, the early church knew with certainty that they were written testimonies by the first-century disciples of Jesus whose names were attached to them. Third, the early fathers even left a clear record of the chronological order in which they were written. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) wrote that the Gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written before the Gospels without (Mark and John). They tell us always without fail that Matthew wrote first. Moreover, Irenaeus tells us that John the Apostle wrote his Gospel last. So, the chronological order of the Gospels is Matthew wrote, then Luke, then Mark, and finally John wrote his testimony. Finally, and most importantly, the summary impact of the certain testimony of the early church as they testified to the canonical Gospels cannot be overstated. Matthew, Luke, Mark and John were written either by direct apostolic eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or based on apostolic eyewitness testimony (Mark—based on Peter’s preaching and Luke [Luke 1:1-4) based on interviewing eyewitnesses and as a companion of Paul [Acts]). When any Christian reads these four Gospels, they are literally “sitting at the feet” of Jesus, as well as listening to eyewitness reports of men and women who knew him directly, intimately, accompanying Him from his birth (Matt 1-3; Luke 1-3) through his ministry (Matt 4-27; Luke 3-23; Mark 1-15; John 1-19) to his Resurrection and ascension to Heaven (Matt 28; Luke 24; Mark 16; John 20-21; Acts 1). The Testimony of the Gospels Themselves as to Their Reliability When the Gospels are examined, one can readily see the eyewitness elements in them that affirm their reliability. Luke says that he interviewed many eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. One must read the opening four verses of Luke that indicates his reliance on eyewitness accounts, Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4 ESV From Luke, Christians can learn how “carefully” the Gospel writers “investigated” Jesus’ life “from the beginning” based on direct “eyewitnesses” of His life. In Acts, Luke even accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys as the “we sections” (see above) indicate. Luke, being a physician, would most likely have been a very good researcher and would have conducted a careful investigation due to his medical training. Matthew, being a trained tax collector and, of necessity, a keeper of records, would have been well qualified by profession to be the first selected to testify of the promised Jewish Messiah. In John, we learn that John has amazing information about things that went on in Jesus’ life. He is mindful of the minutest details regarding the person, time, number and place that could only come from direct, eyewitness experience. He knows the very hour (the 10th hour—John 1:39) that Jesus’ disciples accompanied Him to his house. He knew when Judas slipped out of the last supper with Jesus (John 13:16). John even remembers how many fish they caught when Jesus, after His Resurrection, told them to cast their nets into the sea of Galilee (“153”!—John 21:11). He knew the very thoughts and feelings of the apostles (2:11, 17, 22; 4:27; 6:19, 60; 12:16; 13:22, 28; 20:9; 21:12). He knows his fishing partner, Peter, will die when Jesus told them in a personal conversation with Peter and John (John 1:18). Throughout his Gospel and writings, John uses “we” many times to tell of his personal witness to the life of Jesus (for example, John 1:14—“we have seen His glory” 1 John 1:1-3—“from the beginning,” “we have heard”; “we have seen with our eyes”; “we have looked upon”; “have touched with our hands”). He speaks of “testimony” or “witness” over and over again throughout his Gospel to let the reader know they are directly seeing Jesus’ life when they read the Gospel (For example, John 19:35). John’s descriptive details of the Gospel events are as one who walked with Jesus in the land. He is acquainted with Jewish feasts such as Passover (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 18:28); Tabernacles (5:1?; 7:2); Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah—10:22). He is acquainted with Jewish customs such as arranging of the water pots (2:1-10); burial customs of the Jews (11:38, 44, 19:40); he knew well the feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9). He knew the minutest geographical details, such as that Jacob’s well is deep (4:11;) he distinguishes Bethany (1/2 mile east of Jerusalem) from Bethany beyond the Jordan (21 miles east of Jerusalem) (1:28; 11:18). We learn from the Gospels that Peter and John, along with James, were the three closest disciples of Jesus, being especially privileged to see directly many things that were amazing (for example, Matt 17:1-8 where Jesus was transformed into glorious light; Luke 8:51). We learn from Acts that all the Apostles had seen Jesus’ ministry from the beginning of John’s interaction with Jesus to the very day that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to Heaven (Acts 1:21-22). In 2 Peter 1:16-17, Christians learn that Peter boldly proclaimed his role as an eyewitness: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Often ancient historians of the Greco-Roman tradition were prone to the invention of “tales” or “myths” about a major character whom they wrote a “Life” about, but Peter firmly distances himself from such ancient practices in the writing of “histories” declaring the eyewitness status of those who produced the Gospels. The Testimony of Jesus Christ as to the Certain Reliability of The Eyewitnesses Who Wrote the Gospels The accuracy and reliability of the Gospels are, most importantly, anchored to the certainty of the promises of Jesus himself to those men who were eyewitnesses of His life and teachings. In John 14:26, Jesus promised the Gospel writers, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” From this verse, we learn that the writers of the Gospels would have Spirit of God-empowered, energized minds that would bring everything that Jesus taught and did to their minds. In John 16, Jesus promised, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 16:13-15 Here are direct promises from Jesus that what the Gospel writers proclaimed in their eyewitness testimony would not be merely based on their on human memories but they would have a miraculous ability to remember “all things” and “all the truth.” While human memories might be faulty, the power of God guided, controlled and governed these eyewitnesses in their composition of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. Indeed, because God’s Spirit is “the Spirit of Truth” (John 16:13; 1 John 4:6), the Gospels are the four historical documents that stand uniquely as eyewitness accounts that may be considered inerrant as well as reliable. As Hebrews 6:18 reminds, “it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” Since the Gospels record our hope in Jesus, they give us the promised strong encouragement. Since the Gospels’ foundation is the nature of God Himself, the Gospels are not only reliable, they originated and are sustained in their certainty by the Living God Himself. Moreover, not even the most cunning, non-human intelligence created in the history of the Universe (known under many names as “Satan,” the Adversary”; Lucifer the “god of light” or the “illumined one”; the “Devil”) has ever been able to defeat or destroy God’s Word though he has often tried, nor will he ever able to do so. In the thousands of years since God’s written Word existed, from Moses to Jesus, the most cunning human intellects controlled by the adversary, Satan, who constantly arrays themselves with vile hatred against the Word, have never been able, nor ever will be able, to defeat God’s Word. Why? The Gospels demonstrate the supernatural intelligence of the Living God himself who is actively sustaining his Word from all who dare try. Why? The Gospels rest foundationally on the character of God Himself. Although copies of the Gospels have been destroyed, the Gospels are still here in abundance. God’s Apostles were killed who wrote them; their record of the Gospels are still here. Finally, one promise of Jesus deserves special mention in this discussion. Jesus gave an amazing promise to His followers in Matthew 24:35 about the record of His mission on earth, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” The earth and all of its records will one day be gone, but not Jesus’ Words. While mere human accounts might decay and disappear, the Gospels are a unique genre; nothing is like them in human history, for their existence stands on a central promise of Jesus as well as the unfailing power of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth Himself. No ancient record is comparable to them. Are the Gospels reliable? Most assuredly they are because God promises His people that they are empowered by His Spirit of Truth (Heb 4:12)! defendinginerrancy.com |
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 11:33 |
youtu.be About the speaker: “During his law enforcement career, Wallace served on a number of assignments, including SWAT, Gang Detail, and Robbery Homicide. He was also one of the founding members of the Torrance Police Department's Cold-Case Homicide Unit. Investigative work As a homicide detective, Wallace has investigated a number of high-profile cold-case murders. His cases have been featured on Dateline (NBC) and North Mission Road (truTV). As a founding member of the Torrance Police Department Cold-Case Homicide Unit, Wallace earned the Sustained Superiority Award from the South Bay Police and Fire Medal of Valor committee. He also won the 2015 California Peace Officer Association COPSWEST Award for best solved cold case. Conversion to Christianity In 1996, Wallace became a Christian at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus, using his skill set as a detective. Wallace served and eventually joined the staff of Saddleback Church, while continuing to serve as a cold-case homicide detective. He later enrolled in Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, earning a master's degree in theological studies while serving as a youth pastor at Rock Hills Church and later as a lead pastor for the Rising Tide.” en.m.wikipedia.org |
|
coram_deo 11-Sep-21, 13:25 |
“Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered ‘the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.’ Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. ‘Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.’ Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the ‘World's Most Successful Advocate,’ with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: ‘I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.’ Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ...” www.allaboutthejourney.org |
|
coram_deo 15-Oct-21, 12:24 |
Here is the genealogy of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. The genealogy is in the first 17 verses but I included the rest of Matthew chapter 1 because those verses relate to the unique way in which Jesus was born. “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1) And here’s the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of Luke: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:23-38) How to reconcile them? Here is an article that offers potential explanations - I favor (and have seen most often) the last one cited; that Matthew is recording Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, while Luke is recording Jesus’ genealogy through Mary. From gotquestions.org: Why are Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different? Jesus’ genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph’s father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel’s father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel’s father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah). One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heli’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological. Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23). www.gotquestions.org This explanation is also seen at enduringword.com: iii. This is where we come to the differences in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Matthew recorded the genealogy of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ (Matthew 1:16). He began at Abraham and followed the line down to Jesus, through Joseph. Luke recorded the genealogy of Mary: being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). He began with Jesus and followed the line back up, all the way to Adam, starting from the unmentioned Mary. iv. “Matthew’s genealogy includes Jehoiachin but shows only who Jesus’ legal father was, not his natural one. Luke traces Jesus’ parental line through Nathan, a son of David, not through Solomon.” (Feinberg) enduringword.com |