Part 4 Is the Bible reliable?

Dear Vinny,
I appreciate you insights into what I wrote. A.N. Sherwin-White did acknowledge in classical historiography the sources are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the event they narrate. However, he did remark historians still reconstruct with confidence what happened. You have to admit, if my reasoning (concerning the destruction of the temple) is correct and the Gospel writers wrote 25-40 years after the death of Jesus, then we have good reason to trust what they said is at least historically accurate. Remember, these writings circulated in the very place Jesus was crucified and resurrected. If you are going to make up a legend you make sure there are no living eyewitnesses of the events in question. You can do that by writing 60-100 years after the events or take the story hundreds of miles away. Please tell me how difficult it is to sell a religion in the hostile environment of Jerusalem (Jews at that time were not fans of Jesus the Messiah and Rome worshipped their emperors), with legendary accounts. Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. However, we see an explosion of new believers at the very site of the crucifixion and resurrection. Thousands of devoted followers of Judaism left their belief system and risked eternal damnation to become follower of Jesus Christ. And you think writings that circulated through these audiences were created for national glorification or political spite or for the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas would have produced such an incredible occurrence. How hard is it to convince a person, who has been raised in a religious belief his or her entire life and that belief is lived out daily, to make a complete change? People who waffle on beliefs change all the time but I talk to people with strong beliefs and convincing them they need to change is almost impossible; yet, it happened by the thousands while these writings were being circulated.

Steve

Vinny,
Let me review my original points that served as the springboard for this discussion.

1) I made an argument for an early dating of the Gospels and the Book of Acts, all written before 70 AD. You have yet to offer a counter argument so I assume you agree these books were written soon after the death of Jesus.

2) I said in this short amount of time it was unlikely for a resurrection legend to have been created. I quoted Roman historian Sherwin-White when he said, “Tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over a hard historical core .” You took exception to this quote and said Sherwin-White pointed out there can be legendary aspects that come forth from the writings. But notice in the quote I used, two generations are too short for mythical tendency to prevail over hard historical core. You didn’t dispute this direct quote. The Bible contains hard historical core that is accepted by the vast majority of historians including Sherwin-White. Even if there is a possibility of legends arising (only hypothetical), this same Sherwin-White said historians can still piece together the historical core. In fact even though it seems his opinion of Acts as pure propaganda, he said the book is incredibly accurate historically. His quote is as follows: “For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189) My point in quoting Sherwin-White was to establish the Biblical sources are historically accurate, even from a critic’s standpoint.

3) My third point was the writers were either eyewitnesses of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus or got their information first hand from an eyewitness. This strengthens my case for historically accurate accounts.

Bottom line is all three of these points still stand and you have yet to provide evidence to dispute them. What is your proof the Biblical accounts are Legendary?

A few words about your last letter. The legendary accounts of either people or situations you stated were cases where people believe against the historical evidence. They believe by blind faith and create legends without historical evidence. Vinny, if you have strong historical evidence for their claims then in your next letter please present it. If you don’t have any strong evidence then there is no comparison to the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the writings of Paul. People, without evidence, can believe anything. The case I am presenting is based on evidence and supported by reliable historical records, even from the viewpoint of critics.

As far as Mormonism goes, it is no different than what I said above. I twice visited the Mormon Museum in Salt Lake City Utah seeking any historical evidence to the wild stories told by Joseph Smith. Both times I left without seeing one shred of archeological evidence supporting the existence of the ancient people groups, the Lamanites or the Nephites and their predecessors. Archeologists all over the world reject the historical claim of Joseph Smith and say these people groups never existed.

In contrast the Bible is used as a historical guide for many archeological digs in and around the key locations described in the Bible. There is a scholarly journal, “Biblical Archeological Review” (www.bib-arch.org/) that outlines many of the discoveries that support the historical accuracy of the Bible. Christianity is a historical belief system built on evidence; Mormonism is a fable created in the mind of Joseph Smith and is built on a foundation of each Mormon experiencing a burning in the bosom in place of evidence. There are no comparisons between the two religions.

As far as the growth of Mormonism, you have to provide proof of your claim that it grew at a comparable rate. Soon after the resurrection, thousands of Jews became followers of Christ. As far as I know Mormonism has grown slowly and steadily over the last century. Whereas Christianity exploded quickly in the same place Jesus resurrected from the dead, Mormonism has taken over 100 years establish a reasonable number.

As far as the letters circulating, they would have appeared at a time with many eyewitnesses of the events; both the crucifixion and the resurrection. Remember I am dating the Gospels and the Book of Acts anywhere from 25-35 years after the death of Jesus. These letters would have been open for critics, who saw the events, to point out their legendary foundation; but they didn’t. Instead Christianity exploded and the writings were catalysts to further the growth. As far as the location of where each book was written, this is open to discussion. Both Matthew and John report information concerning Jewish traditions that lead many scholars to believe each were written in or around Jerusalem.

Steve

Vinny,
Thanks for you well written reply. Let me address a few points you made. I will use the numbering system we have established in the past couple of posts.

1) I do agree this issue of the dating of the New Testament books is a much larger issue and I am okay with moving on without tackling it. However, a few thoughts I need to express. My argument that the Gospels and Acts were written before 70 AD because they excluded the deaths of Peter, Paul, and the destruction of the temple, was valid. It is a sound argument and I think you can at least admit that. The fact that most New Testament scholars don’t accept this line of reasoning doesn’t surprise me. I sense it is more of a worldview issue. As I pointed out in the original post, Jesus predicted the complete destruction of the temple and if synoptic Gospels were written before 70 AD, around 55-65 AD, you have what appears to be a miracle. A scholar with a naturalistic worldview cannot accept the supernatural and therefore, must reject any dating before 70 AD. Their rejection of the earlier date comes before they look at the evidence (a priori). Then they must justify their conclusions and thus they come up with their explanations. I have read some of these explanations and I don’t believe they compare to the sound argument I presented.

2) Sherwin-White obviously is not a friend of Christianity. I have not read his books but he is quoted multiple times by various Christian authors. I may in the near future read one of his books. The truth is I don’t need to quote Sherwin-White to establish the fact that the closer a writing is to the event the less likely it would contain legendary elements and more likely the historian will be able to establish the historical core. This is simply a logical conclusion historians themselves would agree with. Do you agree with the concept, when it comes to historical writings, the closer to the events the better?

My quoting a secondary source is not a problem unless my source is not reliable. I am certain you also use secondary sources in your writings, as no one can read everything. William Lane Craig I consider a reliable source when he quotes an author. I read some of your blogs on Craig and I know you don’t agree with this conclusion. However, rather than argue for Craig being a good source I would rather just stay with what quotes you may agree with. What I have learned in this discussion is that Sherwin-White has very little expertise when it comes to the New Testament. You said he calls himself an amateur when it comes to the New Testament and yet he is quick to dismiss it as propaganda. What evidence in his books does he have for calling much of the New Testament propaganda? The one quoted in my comments I posted, he extolled the historical accuracy of the book of Acts. Is this quote accurate? If Acts has a strong historical core then my basic argument stands. The Gospels and Acts should be dated early based on events on or before 70 AD should have been recorded by these writers.

3) On the New Testament writers making up stories, please give me their motivation. Why would they do this? What did they get out of lying? I have read historians always trust the accuracy of the writer unless they have strong counter reasons. What evidence do you have these writers made up their accounts? If these men were liars they must have been charlatans. What evidence do you have these writers were morally bankrupt? I have lots of evidence Joseph Smith was a charlatan. He had over 30 wives and some were as young as 13 years old. He was a gold digger and strongly believed in the occult. I can document my statements with historical evidence. What historical evidence do you have?

Vinny,
Since you have contended from multiple fronts I will respond over time one point after another. I will begin with your statement and then my answer. These answers take lots of time to develop and so please excuse my tardiness in answering you. I do all this on what free time I have.

[Vinny] (1) All other things being equal, I agree that an early date for Acts would explain the fact that it says nothing about the deaths of Peter and Paul. However, I think there are a number of problems with placing a great deal of weight on this argument.
First, I think is the lack of reliable information about the deaths of Peter and Paul. Tradition puts their deaths during Nero’s persecution of Christians during the 60’s A.D., however, these traditions date to sometime in the mid to late 2nd century. Before we can draw any inferences from the lack of reference to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, we would need historically reliable evidence of how and when they died.

[Steve] First you contend there is not enough historical evidence of how and when Peter and Paul died. I am not sure what you need. I realize whatever I produce it will not be sufficient for your historical standards. Are you as skeptical about the writings of Plato? How about Aristotle? How about Tacitus, Phiny, Suetonius, and other ancient writings? How many blogs have you written attacking historical reliability of any of these writers? How does their manuscript evidence stack up against the writings of the New Testament? Do you feel you hold the Bible at a different standard than other ancient writings? Help me understand your skepticism of the Bible. Maybe I am way off in my assessment of what seems to be a historical bias against the writers of the books of the Bible.

You say there is nothing written about the deaths of Peter and Paul until the mid to late 2nd century. However, Clement of Rome (you said wrote around 95 AD) wrote the following that seems to point to the martyr deaths of Peter and Paul.

FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS chapter 5

“But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

I realize you may not like the English translation of this Epistle of Clement. It was done by The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, Ll.D.,Editors. The Greek word “martyresas” can be translated martyr, witness, or testified. Even if I grant it might be better translated “testified” the context that surrounds the entire quote seems to indicate the martyr death of both Peter and Paul. Clement speaks of the pillars of the church being put to death and who are his two shining examples? Peter and Paul both pillars of the church and said to go to a glorious or holy place, which I think point to their deaths.

Let me return back to your skepticism. I wonder if most historians are strong doubters of all these writings as you are. Do you think the majority of historical scholars really believe Peter and Paul died peacefully, living out their lives in relative obscurity? Do you really think the traditions passed down by the early church were simply legend after legend, in an incredible conspiracy, to build the Christian religion? Do all these ancient writings both from the Bible and early church fathers display a complete ignorance of the true facts; was it all wishful thinking?

[Vinny] Second, none of the first century epistles, including 1st Clement, mention the gospels. If we can infer from Acts’ silence that its author did not know of the deaths of Peter and Paul, cannot we also infer from the epistles’ silence that none of their authors knew of the gospels? Since Clement of Rome supposedly knew both Peter and Paul, it would be reasonable to assume that he knew both Luke and Mark as well. Nevertheless, his letter to the Corinthians written around 95 A.D. does not give any indication that he was aware of any gospels written by the companions of Peter and Paul.

[Steve] What were the genres of the writings? Acts was a historical account of the early church and Clement was a letter to the church at Corinth. These are two vastly different genres, with vastly different objectives. The book of Acts chronicling the major events of the early church, if written after the deaths of both Peter and Paul and the destruction of the temple, has to answer to why these events were left out. However, Clement writing a letter to the church at Corinth, understandably doesn’t mention the Gospels because this was not the purpose of the letter. The Book of John, by all scholars, is said to be written after Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts and yet he doesn’t mention any of those books. Don’t you think he was aware of them? It wasn’t his purpose; neither was it the purpose of Clement to mention the Gospels. He was addressing issues with the church, many of which were moral problems. However, a history book, like Acts, skipping major events is unbelievable! Your argument fails to take into account the different genres or purposes of the books.
I will continue when I get a chance. My problem is we have so many issues over each posting, that I am struggling to keep up. I will do my best over time to answer some of your arguments.

Steve