NT historical?
INTRODUCTION:
1. Have seen that the NT story is one of ‘faith’ -
2. There ARE historical evidences available outside of the NT concerning Jesus -
3. the NT itself is a ‘book of history’
4. What constitutes a ‘historical document’ - how do we determine such?
1. Has to do with the ‘dates’ of the writings.
a. Baur, concluded that most of the NT was written late in the 2nd century - and hence were legends and myths that developed during the 100+ years since the life of Jesus.
b. This before many of the manuscript discoveries that we NOW have -
1. the John Ryland manuscripts, ad 130
2. the Chesteer Beatty Papyri, ad 155
3. Bodmer Papyri II, ad 200 -
c. The comparison of those with what we already had shows that almost nothing was changed, and what little there had been was inconsequential.
d. William Albright, "
We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
e. John A. T. Robinson concluded from his studies that the whole of the NT was written before the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70.
f. Dr. Peter Stuhlmacher of Tubingen,
1. "As a Western Scripture scholar, I am inclined to doubt these [gospel] stories, but as a historian I am obliged to take them as reliable’.
2. "The biblical texts as they stand are the best hypothesis we have until now to explain what really happened.
What then is the evidence for the historical reliablity of the NT?
1. The Bibliographical test
a. not having the original, how accurate are the copies we have in regtard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval betwen the original and extant copy?
b. History of Thucydides (460-400 bc) - 8 manuscripts from ad 900 (1300 year interval)
c. history of Herodotus,
d. Aristotle, circa 343 bc, 5 manuscripts, from 1100 ad (1400 year interval)
e. Caesar’ history of the Gallic Wars - 58 - 50 bc, 9 - 10 copies from 1000+ ad.
f. NT - 22,000 copies , some ‘almost complete’ copies from with 100 years. Plus translations that date back to 2nd century.
g. Sir Frederic Kenyon, principal librarian at the British Museum, concludes:
The interval then 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 to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the genral integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
h. NT scholar, J. Harold Greenlee adds:
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.
NOTE; CHARTS - ON THE ABOVE EVIDENCE, AND THE OVERLAPPING LIVES OF THE WRITERS (McDowell, pg. 89).
I. F.F. Bruce, rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the University of Manchester, says: "The evidence for our NT writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the NT were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historian shave often been much readier to trust the NT records than have many theologians." (The NT Documents: Are they Reliable?, p. 15)
2. The Internal evidence test
a. The above only shows that what we NOW have is essentially what was originally recorded.
b. Is the written record ‘credible’ - and to what extent.
c. Aristotle’s ‘rule’, "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself"
d. Under question the writer’s ability to tell the truth concerning the events recorded.
e. To be considered then is the writers ‘proximity’ to the event - both geographically and chronologically.
1. Luke 1:1-3 - Luke followed eyewitness testimony.
2. 2 Pet. 1:16 - Peter an eyewitness of the majest of the Lord
3. 1 John 1:3 - John (the apostles) heard, saw, and handled Jesus -
4. John 19:35 - John saw and bore witness that these things are true -
5. Luke 3:1 -
f. Such records were being circulated within the lifetimes of those alive during Jesus’ life. They would have confirmed or denied any such truthfulness.
g. Acts 2:22 - "as you know......"
h. Acts 26:24-28 ....’not done in a corner...."
I. Lawrence J. McGinley, Saint Peter’s College:
First of all, eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged"
3. The external evidence test.
a. Do other historical material confirm or deny the internal testimony of the documents?
b. "conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or of more witnesses." - Gottschalk.
c. The testimony of Eusebius... church historian 4th century
He quoted Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130 ad) redarding what the ‘elder’ John used to say. According to Eusebius, Papias used to talk with anyone he could to learn the saying of the elders, such as Andrew, Peter, Philip,Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples. Papias said that John said that Mark interpreted Peter and wrote down accurately all the Peter mentioned. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical history, III:39)
d. The testimony of Irenaeus (wrote c. 180ad) - had been a student of Polycarp who was martyred in 156 ad at the age of 86. Poly carp had been a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus says the following things about the gospels (see Against Heresies, III.1)
1. Matthew published a gospel in the Jewish tongue.
2. Mark handed down the things preached by Peter.
3. Luke set down in a book the gospel preached by Paul.
4. John wrote a gospel while living at Ephesus.
e. Plus others including
1. Clement of Rome (died 102 ad, the letter to the Corinthians) - quotes from Matt., Mark, Luke, and Acts, 1 Cor., 1 Pet. Heb. & Titus
2. Ignatius (died 117 ad) guotes from Mtt., John, and Acts, many of Paul’s letters, james, and 1 Pet.
3. The Didache (a ‘church manual’ written c. 95 ad) - quotes from the sermon on the mount and the Lord’s prayer, plus other material taken from the gospels.
f. the testimony of Archaeology -
1. Suffice it to say, that archaeology only continues to ADD to our trust in the accuracy of the ‘written record’. So many things have been uncovered that it requires several books - and is even now being added to.
Conclusion: the NT IS history, as with any other book of history - with the exception that it claims to be INSPIRED of God and teaches concerning the Son of God - if it were not for that there would BE no debate - but that is the rub!
1 Cor. 15:1-3 - this is the gospel of our salvation -- IF we 1. believe and 2. hold on to it.
Mark 16:15-16 -