Saturday, January 16, 2010

Did Jesus Really Say That? The Reliability of the New Testament Gospels

Matthew 6:19-23 is one of my favorite Gospel passages. In it, Jesus says:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

This passage is powerful on many levels. First, it is a reminder that the things of God are more valuable than the things of this earth. You can’t take your earthly treasure with you when you die. Material things – the stuff we all pursue to greater or lesser degrees – are transitory. That nice Toyota Camry in the parking lot could be stolen during church this morning, or vandalized at home tomorrow, or demolished in an accident on Tuesday. For all I know, my precious piano in our Louisville townhouse has already been stolen or wrecked in our absence. Stuff doesn’t last. Spiritual treasures do. Second, the passage conveys the power of our worldview. The lens through which we view the world – our proverbial eyes in verses 22 and 23 – determines a great deal of how things affect us. If one’s eyes, one’s worldview, entirely discounts the very possibility of God’s existence, then no amount of evidence and argumentation will be able to change their mind. If the light within, the worldview, is darkness, how great indeed is the darkness that ensues. And third, the passage warns that we cannot serve both God and Money. Materialism is not a new temptation and snare for Christians – it pervaded 1st century Judaism and Christianity as well. God’s people have always been tempted to chase after the fruits of materialism instead of the fruits of the Spirit. This is nothing new. Jesus simply warns us, starkly, that we must make our choice. Money will master us unless we allow God to be our Master. It cannot be both ways. Indeed, this little passage carries deep, rich teaching for followers of Jesus Christ.

But have you ever wondered – did Jesus really say that? That is, are those words, which appear in my Bible as red-letter words, truly words which were uttered by Jesus of Nazareth? Beginning in the 18th century, the rise of critical scholarship questioned the historiticity of the New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels and Acts. In the mid-20th century, Rudolf Bultmann popularized the practice of “demythologization” – that is, stripping the Gospels of their layers of supernaturalism, miracle, and myth, and reducing them to their original ethical core. The original Gospels, according to Bultmann and others, were simply records of Jesus’ ethical teaching and revolutionary insubordination, upon which the Church later imposed its deification of Jesus and doctrinal assertions. In the 1980s, a group of scholars known as the Jesus Seminar began publishing their theory 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. In their view, “the historical Jesus has been overlaid by Christian legend, myth, and metaphysics and thus scarcely resembled the Christ figure presented in the Gospels and worshiped by the church today.”[1] In their professional democratic opinion, less than 20% of Jesus’ words recorded in the Gospels are understood to be actually his own words; the rest are legendary additions.

Thus, when a pastor stands up and teaches that Jesus walked on water out to the disciples, the demythologizer responds – “no, he didn’t. The Gospels say he did, but that never happened.” If we want the demythologizer to accept the teaching of the New Testament, we need to provide good reasons to embrace the historicity of the documents.

So, there are a few important questions we need to answer: Are the Gospels accurate biographies of Jesus’ life and ministry? Did Jesus really say what the Gospels say he said? Did Jesus really do what the Gospels say he did? Are there good reasons for accepting the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels? Do we have good reasons for believing the Gospels to be reliable? Or must we take it on “blind faith”? I am convinced, personally speaking, that the Bible is entirely trustworthy because it is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. But it’s a funny thing – when I was an atheist, if someone quoted the Bible to me, I would simply say, “So what? Why should I believe that?” A skeptic is not going to accept the authority or inspiration of the Bible. Thus, if we want our skeptical friends to accept what the Gospels tell us about Jesus, we need to establish the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible by providing them with good reasons, good evidence, that points to the reliability of the texts which we trust and believe. Thankfully, those evidential reasons exist. Let's look at six lines of evidence that support the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels.


1. The Gospels Claim to be Eyewitnesses
First, the New Testament Gospels present themselves as either eyewitness accounts, or accounts derived from eyewitnesses.

a) Luke 1:1-4 – 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.

Notice the emphases that the historian Luke makes. First, his account accords with that of those who were eyewitnesses. Second, Luke has carefully investigated the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, he presents his Gospel as an orderly, historical account of Jesus’ life. Furthermore, when talking about the historical reliability of Luke’s Gospel, we cannot separate it from the Book of Acts, of which Luke is also the author. In several passages in the book of Acts, Luke slips into first-person plural talk, revealing that he accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys. Note Acts 16:10 – After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia. The first-person plural recurs in Acts 20:5-11, 21:1-26, and chapters 27 & 28. Luke was an eye-witness of many of the accounts recorded in Acts; furthermore, he was an associate of Paul, and therefore had access to the eyewitness accounts of the other apostles – James, John, and Peter in particular. It is reasonable to conclude that Luke’s Gospel contains considerable eye-witness testimony. Indeed, it is highly unreasonable to argue to the contrary.

b) The Gospel of John was the last Gospel to be written down, somewhere around A.D. 95, or 65 years after Christ’s crucifixion. But the Gospel-writer insists that it is a trustworthy eye-witness account of what truly happened. John 20:30-31 reads: Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. One page later, John 21:24-25 claims: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. While this passage suggests that the words in John’s Gospel may have been written by John’s close associates rather than by John himself, they insist unapologetically and incontrovertibly that the words derive from the apostle John, an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry.
Admittedly, all this provides is a claim to be eyewitness testimony. But we do have corroborating evidence which supports the eyewitness claims of the Gospels, and that is what we are going to move on to.

2. The early date of the New Testament Gospels
A second reason to accept the reliability of the Gospels is that they were written relatively close to the time of the events which they relate. Almost all scholars agree that Mark is the earliest Gospel. Many scholars estimate it was written by A.D. 50, less than twenty years after Jesus’ death. The most liberal scholars out there, who seek to date things as late as humanly possible, agree that Mark must have been written before A.D. 65. Matthew and Luke were written between A.D. 60 and A.D. 85 (I tend to believe they were much closer to A.D. 60); and then John around A.D. 95. This means that when the New Testament Gospels were written and began to circulate amongst the Christian Churches, there would still have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people alive and present in those churches who themselves had seen and heard Jesus during His earthly ministry. While it is not in the Gospels, the testimony of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is important. There, Paul relates that after His resurrection, Jesus appeared (verse 6) to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Paul asserts that his claim can be checked with people who are still alive and were the eyewitnesses of what Paul is claiming to have happened. 1 Corinthians is written in the mid-50s, quite probably after Mark, but before the other Gospels.

Again, the point is simply that 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 eyewitness reports. This latter point should not be underemphasized. The Gospel materials were already circulating widely by AD 50 – less than twenty years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. That means that not only friends, but also foes of Christianity were around to counter false presentations. Yet there is not even a whisper of dissenting opinion. 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 (or demon-possessed, which to Jews was the same thing). But we have NO non-Christian argument in those early decades (and centuries) that Jesus did not perform the miracles that he is reported to have performed, and NO non-Christian argument that he did not say and do the things that the Gospels report him as having said and done.

3. The historical church has always embraced them as eyewitness accounts.
A third compelling reason to accept the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts is that the Christian Church universally has acknowledged them as such. From the first century onward, devout Christians have recognized that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are historical records of Jesus’ life. There is no debate within the church until the rise of critical scholarship during the Enlightenment (16th century and onwards). When the Gospels claim eyewitness status and the Church historically recognizes them as reliable and trustworthy, we ought to have strong reasons for rejecting such status.

What about other Gospels, accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry that are not in our New Testament? Two years ago the much-publicized “Gospel of Judas” made headlines around the world. Three years ago the blockbuster movie The DaVinci Code argued powerfully (and wrongly) that there were over 80 Gospels of Jesus’ life, and the patriarchal, misogynistic Catholic Church whittled them down to four acceptable, censored Gospels. The simple fact is that the early Church fathers, from the 1st century through the 4th century, did not recognize extra-canonical Gospels as authentic eyewitness accounts. Early church leaders like Clement, Papias, Justin, and Tertullian quote copiously from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and cite them as authoritative accounts. But they don't quote from other Gospels—Peter, Philip, Mary, Judas, etc. They never mention them as acceptable accounts. They do, however, sometimes cite them as untrustworthy accounts written later by people who had no connection with the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry. If you glance through some of the “other” accounts of Jesus’ life, you will most likely recognize quite quickly why the early Church did not accept them as valid historical accounts of Jesus’ ministry. For example, in the Gospel of Peter (a late 2nd-century invention largely copied from Matthew and John), we read this account of the scene of Jesus’ resurrection:

The stone cast before the entrance rolled away by itself and moved to one side; the tomb was open and both young men entered. . . .

They saw three men emerge from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, with a cross following behind them. The heads of the two reached up to the sky, but the head of the one they were leading went up above the skies. And they heard a voice from the skies, ‘Have you preached to those who are asleep?’ And a reply came from the cross, ‘Yes.’


Early Christians were not stupid. They were not foolish. They were not na├»ve. Like the Gospel-writer Luke, they sought to establish what they believed on solid historical and evidential grounds. They did not credulously swallow ever tale or myth about Jesus—only what was well-grounded and well-attested by eyewitness testimony. That is why the four canonical Gospels were accepted, and the others were not.

4. Internal evidence of the Gospels.
A fourth reason to accept the historical reliability of the Gospels is the Gospels themselves. That is, the internal evidence of events and details contained within each Gospel strongly support their status as reliable eyewitness documents. When the police seek an eyewitness account of what happened at a crime scene, they often look for incidental details that witnesses are able to provide. Simply put, 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. Vanessa and I are very different. We both enjoy fiction, particularly good mysteries. But a couple of weeks ago she was saying how she doesn’t really care for lengthy descriptive passages contained in many longer novels. She’s interested in the story itself. I, however, love the descriptive passages which draw a verbal picture. 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. Now, the picture admittedly doesn’t carry as much power with us as it would have for John’s original audience, who would have been familiar with the places that John writes about. But what John effectively does here is demonstrate his familiarity with exactly what happened, and exactly where.

I should also mention, in passing, that for skeptics and critics, it sometimes doesn’t matter. In situations like these, a critical scholar can happily claim, “John wasn’t really there. He just adds all of these details, some of them (like the name of the pool and gate) recalled from his memory of Jerusalem, others (like the length of his injury) purely imagined by John, in order to make us think that John was actually there.” For such scholars, the level of detail is not confirmation of eyewitness standing, but rather evidence of deliberate deception.

In other situations, however, the same scholars will point to the absence of details as evidence that the Gospel-writer was not an eyewitness at all. In fact, in this very passage, scholars will point to verse 1, and say, “Why didn’t John identify which feast it was? Obviously, because John wasn’t there, this didn’t really happen, and so he can’t say when the feast was.” So the lack of one detail is evidence that John wasn’t there, and the presence of other details is evidence of John’s deliberate deception. John just can’t win! If incidental details are there, it “proves” that John is making them up and putting them in to make the reader think he was actually there. If the details are not there, it “proves” that John wasn’t an eyewitness to what he relates. What is really going on is that such scholars are unwilling to admit the eyewitness standing of the Gospel-writers no matter what, because admitting the Gospels as eye-witness testimony has grave implications that they are absolutely unwilling to accept.

Another example is found in Mark 14:1-3. Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. ‘But not during the Feast,’ they said, ‘or the people may riot.’ While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head. Again, notice the details that Mark shares, which indicate his personal familiarity with the event. He tells us the exact day on which it occurs (two days before the Passover), the personal name of Jesus’ host (Simon the Leper), the precise type of perfume (made of pure nard), and even the method by which the woman pours the perfume on Jesus’ head (breaking the jar rather than pouring out from the top).

We have looked at just three of hundreds of passages in the Gospels which have such incidental details which support the eyewitness status of the accounts. Richard Bauckham, in his majestic work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses includes much more. Suffice to say that the New Testament Gospels provide sufficient support for their eyewitness claims.

5. Evidential support of the Gospels’ Historical Accuracy
A fifth reason is the evidential support of the Gospels historical accuracy. If police are presented with a professed eyewitness of a crime, they like to find empirical, objective confirmation that the individual was, in fact, at the scene. This is not always possible, but sometimes it is. The same is true with the New Testament Gospels. It is sometimes possible to confirm, through objective evidence, that the Gospel-writers had first-hand knowledge of what they wrote about. This is where the discipline of archaeology comes into play. Not everything can be verified from archaeological discoveries and extra-biblical records, but much has been.

One fascinating example has to do with a passage already discussed – the healing of a disabled man in John 5. For years, critical scholars rejected the eyewitness standing of John’s account 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 honestly impossible 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! But some scholars, in their rush to denigrate the reliability of the Gospels, jump to such unsupported conclusions anyways. “We can’t find any inscriptions of a Sheep Gate by the pools of Bethsaida; therefore there was no such thing.” Come on!

Well, sadly for critics and happily for Christians, archaeological discoveries have 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 such 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. If you’re into looking for more, check out bible.org’s series: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5824; or Mark Roberts’ series: http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable3.htm. Both have much more.

6. Experiential verification of the Gospels
So far we have covered five compelling reasons to acknowledge the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels – the Gospels’ claim to transmit accurate records of Jesus’ life, ministry, and death; the early church’s recognition of their eyewitness status; the internal evidence of the Gospels; and the empirical verification provided by archaeology. The sixth reason we have for accepting the reliability and trustworthiness of the Gospels is on a different level. It is not so much an intellectual or academic reason as it is an experiential reason.

If you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, you will find the truth of the Gospels confirmed in your life. You will experience the release of forgiveness & reconciliation with God; you will receive abundant joy of life in Christ. You will, both quickly and gradually, experience the transformation of your character, will, and works. Finally, you will find redemption and meaning in the midst of suffering. All that Jesus promises in the Gospels to those who will follow Him, you will find confirmed in your life – if you follow Him.

In some ways, it is analogous to the argument that marital faithfulness is the best path to take in romantic relationships. I could point to Scriptural arguments saying that God has designed us for monogamous sexual faithfulness. I could also point to sociological arguments, that faithful spouses are happier and express greater sexual satisfaction. I could point to further evidence that children of faithful married couples exhibit less sociological dysfunctions. But my final appeal to you would be personal and experiential—that if you will enter into a marriage covenant, and remain faithful to your husband or wife, you will experience the best of what God has to offer in human relationships. It is an argument whose full force can only be felt by one who chooses willingly to experience it in their life.

Same with the Gospels of the New Testament. We have surveyed some strong rational and evidential reasons to consider them trustworthy historical records of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. The Gospels themselves claim eyewitness status, and profess to contain a reliable record of Jesus’ life. The Gospels were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events of Jesus’ life. The Church historically has accepted the Gospels as trustworthy accounts. The incidental details contained within the Gospels confirm their eyewitness status. Archaeology has confirmed many of the eyewitness details recorded in the Gospels. But finally, and ultimately most persuasively, the Gospels are open to personal, experiential verification. As we embrace the Savior proclaimed in and through the Gospels, we find God confirming the truth of the accounts of Jesus’ life.


[1] Craig, Reasonable Faith (3rd ed.), 299.

9 comments:

  1. the internal evidence of events and details contained within each Gospel strongly support their status as reliable eyewitness documents.

    Does this apply, do you think, to the gospel writers' direct reporting of the exact words spoken by various people?

    I have in mind how often our gospels' writers "quote" other people. Besides Jesus' the gospels also record words of the disciples, Herod, angels, demons, Satan, tax collectors, and crowds of people all saying the same words all together. The gospels even record long speeches spoken in dreams, and verbatim accounts of inner thoughts that were never spoken, but that Jesus knew because He could read minds.

    Here's our internal evidence reliability question : How'd they do that? How did the gospel writers know, all those decades later, exactly—word for word—what the angel said in Joseph's dream, or Herod said in his secret meeting, or the Pharisees thought in their private thoughts but never spoke? What possible method could our gospel writers have used to come up with the verbatim quotations they claim to give?

    Or did the gospel writers get all those "quotations" by just making them up? Is it more likely that "Matthew" knew the words Herod spoke in a secret meeting, or did "Matthew" probably, like everyone else back then, just make up quotes because that was the standard way to tell a story?

    And if the only reasonable non-magical explanation is that the gospel writers got their "quotations" by making them up, then .... our gospel writers made stuff up. Just made it up. And it is not true the gospels are historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about in them actually happened.


    Bino Bolumai

    / In Bino Veritas /

    ReplyDelete
  2. They were written the same way Genesis was written. Obviously, no one but God was around when the earth was created, so God himself gave the descriptions and the words to the author who penned them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PART I:
    Welcome to my blog! You pose good questions which are shared by many - thank you for contributing. I hope my response is helpful - I know I'm not the first person to answer your questions (in pretty similar wording judging from the "Entangled States" and "Skeptics Answered" forums, I might add), but nonetheless your questions merit a response.

    "How'd they do that? ... "

    Well, Luke for one tells us. He undertook to write an orderly account, which involved talking to people who WERE there and DID hear what had been spoken.

    A few things you overlook. (1) Many Pharisees, priests, and scribes are recorded as being amongst the earliest converts to Christianity ("The Way" at that point in time). Luke (and the other Gospel-writers) no doubt talked to these many converts, and heard FROM THEM what their inner thoughts had been during Jesus' ministry. For example, Mark 2:1-10 records the healing of a paralytic man, who is lowered into a house through the roof. Jesus first proclaims, "your sins are forgiven," at which (verse 6 tells us) some teachers of the law were "thinking to themselves 'Why does this fellow talk like that?'" Verse 8 says that Jesus knew what they were thinking, and responds. One of more of those Jewish leaders later becomes a follower of Christ (either before or more probably after his resurrection), and relates with astonishment to the rest of the early Christian community how shocked he was that day in Capernaum when Jesus knew his own unspoken thoughts.

    The other two examples you gave - "Joseph's dream" is quite easy. Joseph would have spoken to Mary (the mother of Jesus), who treasured a lot of things in her heart, and later was an important figure in the early Christian community. Herod's words in his secret meetings - I forget precisely where it is, but I think it's in one of Paul's letters where it is mentioned that a number from within Herod's own household were amongst the early Christian community. So again there is no surprise that the Gospel-writers would have become acquainted with the words of Herod.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PART II:
    "Or did the gospel writers get all those 'quotations' by just making them up? ..."

    Making up quotes was certainly NOT the standard way of telling a (hi)story! Paraphrasing, yes. Making up, no. And in the early Christian community, there was considerable impetus to tell the history the way that it actually happened. Christianity was not a commitment to a set of philosophical principles, or to a revolutionary programme. It was attachment to a historical individual, Jesus of Nazareth, who was belived to have been God in the flesh. His words and deeds were not like those of Herod, or Pilate, or even the Caesars. Rather, his words were treasured. As I am sure you are aware, most biblical scholars believe that there is a document earlier than the canonical Gospels called "Q", which is presumed to have been a book of sayings of Jesus. In other words, his words were recorded at a very early date, and his followers sought to preserve them as accurately and faithfully as possible.

    You do, however, bring up a good point. Does my faith in the historical reliability of the Gospels require that the words of Christ be an exact transcript, word-for-word, of what Jesus spoke? The answer is no. While ancient historians did not (by and large - I'm sure there were exceptions then as there are today) "make up" quotations to suit their purposes, they certainly did not have access to tape recorders or video footage of Jesus. There is much paraphrasing in any ancient history, and the New Testament Gospels are no exception. However, paraphrasing is a far cry from "making things up". The Gospel writers transcribed the essence of what Jesus (and others) said with as much accuracy as possible. They emphasized certain things in distinct and purposeful ways, but there is certainly no evidence that they made anything up!

    "And if the only reasonable non-magical explanation is that the gospel writers got their 'quotations' by making them up, then .... our gospel writers made stuff up."

    As I have argued, "making stuff up" is NOT the most (let alone the only) reasonable explanation of the content of the Gospels. Indeed, when you place the hypothesis of "making stuff up" alongside the commitment of the Gospel writers to presenting a historical, trustworthy account, the presence of both friendly and unfriendly living eyewitnesses who could counter any false representations in the Gospels, the confirmation of numerous Gospel details through archaeological evidence, the endeavor of the early Church to know and to treasure the very words of Christ, the idea that the Gospel-writers just "made stuff up" willy-nilly simply does NOT make sense at all.

    I close with an exhortation I'm sure you've heard before. Read Bauckham's work. With an open mind. You may be surprised by what you find about the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you. I think we agree. For eg.

    How did Mt. 3 know, all those decades later, exactly—word for word—John the Baptist said out in the desert before there were any Jesus' apostles?

    He couldn't. Not possible.


    Chapter 4 of the Gospel of Matthew records a long conversation between Jesus and the Devil, who were at the time alone in the desert. How was "Matthew" able to record their conversation, alone in the desert, word for word?

    He couldn't. Not possible.


    According to Mt. 5 – 8 Jesus sat down up on the mountain and spoke, in English translation, 2,400 words. He spoke them once, and "Matthew" wrote them down. Decades later. Verbatim.

    Here's a test. Right now go read those 2,400 words. Then write them down exactly. Check your work. How'd you do?

    What "Matthew" claims to do is not possible .


    We agree. It is not possible for the NT to give the actual words spoken by J the B, or the Devil in the wilderness, or the dozens of other direct "quotations" the NT writers pretend to give. It is not possible. What the gospel writers claim to do cannot be done. They made it up. The words we read in the NT were not really actually spoken.

    As you say, the NT quotations are nothing but the personal interpretations of the impressions of the opinions of the gospel writers. Whoever they were.

    What "Matthew" claims to do is not possible. "Matthew" made these conversations up. "Matthew" made stuff up. The stuff we read in "Matthew" did not happen the way "Matthew" said it did. "Matthew" cannot be trusted. The New Testament is not historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about there actually happened.


    Bino Bolumai

    / In Bino Veritas /

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bino - I gotta admit, you're amusing! Even though it doesn't respond at all to what I wrote regarding your post, you simply copied and pasted your comments from other forums into here. Why don't you actually interact with what I wrote instead? I suspect it's because you do not have answers.

    For the benefit of others who may be reading these responses:

    John 1-2 clearly indicates that some of John the Baptist's own disciples were amongst the twelve disciples of Jesus. Furthermore, huge crowds went to hear John. There would have been thousands who knew what John said, some of them within the early Christian community itself.

    Jesus spent three years teaching his disiples and sharing life with them. Why can you not understand that Jesus would have told them what he experienced in the desert?

    Whether you like it or not, putting Matthew in quotation marks does not eliminate the fact that the Gospel attributed to Matthew was most probably written by Matthew the apostle (also known as Levi).

    And you know perfectly well that there is a difference between verbatim accounts and making stuff up. My perspective is that the Gospel writers did what other serious ancient historians did - provide thought-for-thought accounts, as accurately as possible, of what their subject (in this case Jesus) said and did. I'm sorry you don't like that reality, and I hope that changes someday. But please, if you're going to interact on this blog, do something more than cut and paste your posts from other forums. Interact with actual thoughts and arguments that I put forth, seeking to actually do justice to the way I think and write.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just re-read the second set of comments posted by Bino Bolumai, and wanted to show something to anyone who might be reading this. First, notice that in response to Bino's original comment, I posted a very lengthy response (in two parts). [Incidentally, Miss Laine's response was much shorter, and probably would have been just as effective for this particular commenter!] Second, read Bino's second comment, and try to find ONE PLACE where he actually responds to anything that I wrote in my answers to his questions. You won't find any. Third, notice how brazenly Bino put thoughts in my mind and mouth that I never wrote, nor would ever write. We certainly do NOT agree. Mind you, I think Bino knows that perfectly well. But again, all he was doing is posting the exact same comments on my blog that he has posted on other forums (look up Entangled States and Skeptics Answered if you want to check for yourself). Interacting with my arguments would take far too much effor. Much simpler to copy and paste and pretend that there is no rational requiremet to respond to what others actually think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great article and responses Tawa. Was browsing around for a refresh and found this to be wonderfully concise. I have come to believe that even when the strongest skeptic begins to genuinely look at the evidence it is because God is doing a work in their hearts. God Bless!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very well written, and helpful...If this were a court case, Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament would win!...Now, I'll go back and re-read everything, to get a better understanding of things....And in all seriousness, why would his followers, who locked themselves in a house out of fear of the Jews, who had doubts that he would resurrect, suddenly go out and begin preaching the word...preaching that they firmly believed that He was resurrected...that they actually saw him...Why would they willingly risk torture and death (many receiving it), if they knew it to not be true? That wouldn't make much sense, now would it? Very good article. I'll share it on my facebook.

    ReplyDelete