This is part two in my series on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Part one – Jesus outside the Gospels – can be found here.
The Gospels were written so far after the facts that they are full of legend at best, out right lies at worst. So goes the perception of many people outside of Christianity, and, unfortunately, also of some within Christianity. But this perception is wrong, as illustrated by corroborating evidence from within the writings of early Christians.
Again, this may be a strange place to look at the veracity of the Gospels, but as we saw when we examined contemporary sources outside of Christianity, having other documents support your writing is extremely beneficial in buttressing a truth claim.
As a recap – if you only look at what non-Christian writers, some hostile to the faith, wrote about Jesus you could determine 12 central facts about his life, his crucifixion and the reaction to his death by the disciples (they believed He was resurrected and worshiped Him as God).
Now we turn to the letters of Paul, written so early after Jesus’ life that no one can make a credible claim that legendary material crept into his writings.
The earliest statement about Jesus is most likely from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul quotes an early church creed:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethen at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
This letter was written some time in the mid 50’s, but the creed dates back years before. The most likely place and time Paul would have “received” it was during his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion. This puts the origin of the creed within eight years to eighteen months of Jesus death, possibly even earlier. Clearly, this is not enough time for legend to take root.
Also of note in Paul’s statement is his reference to all the witnesses of the resurrection, particularly that some are still alive. Many note that he is essentially challenging those who doubt him to go and talk to the close to 500 people who will back up what he is saying.
All of Paul’s letters must have been written before the mid 60’s, since he died thereabouts. So just using his letters which date within 30 years of Jesus’ death we can find out numerous facts about Jesus.
New Testament scholar Edwin Yamauchi says that the following can be known about Jesus from Paul’s letters: a decendent of David, the Messiah, was betrayed, tried, crucified for our sins, buried and rose on the third day and was seen by many people after the resurrection.
The fact that Paul, a “pharisee of the pharisees” coming from the heavily monotheistic Jewish background, worshiped Jesus as God is extremely significant said Yamauchi.
Not only are the Gospels supported by the early writings of Paul, they are supported by the writings of the early church fathers. Just from evaluating the writings of seven church leaders, you find they quote the Gospels 19,368 time (36,289 quoations of all NT books). All but eleven verses of the NT could be constructed simply using their quotations.
By the second century, the four Gospels were already accepted as Scripture with no other candidates meriting anything above a sparse mention. Irenaeus (180 AD) illustrates the obvious nature of the four Gospels by comapring them to the four directions of a compass. He mentions each Gospel, the author and how it came about.
His mentor, Polycarp lived from 70 – 156 AD and had an unshakeable trust in the authenticity of scripture. When he was asked to recant his faith or die, he reportedly said, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He hath done me no wrong. How can I speak evil of my King who saved me?” He was burned at the stake.
The quoting of the NT by the early church fathers also allows us to push the dates of the Gospels and other NT books foward. If we evaluate the writings of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp between 95-110 AD, we see quotations from every book of the NT except Jude and 2 John. However, both books had to have been written before then because Jude was Jesus’ half-brother so he would have been dead by then and 3 John was written after 2 John and it was among the books quoted by Ignatius.
Stepping back from all the dates and facts, think about this in personal terms. What one event impacted you more than anything else? What one person played a huge role in your development as a person? Do you remember where you were and what you were doing when the second plane hit the World Trade Center, the Challenger exploded, or, if you are old enough, JFK was shot? Important events and special people are entrenched into our memories. We cannot forget things that took place, words they said to us.
Now think about the disciples. Using numerous sources, I have shown that the core principles of Christianity can be traced to within a few years of Jesus death. Do you honestly think that legend could inflitrate the message in that short a period? These people worshiped Jesus as God. He made a bigger impact on them then a thousand 9/11 could make on us. Would you have forgotten something, someone like that? Neither would they.
Resources:
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
A lecture given by Dr. Geisler on March 20, 2006
Oh yeah? Well I read this book and it says the Catholic Church is full of crap!
(Apparently, they are into S&M too… eww!)
Dude, can you say historical FICTION? :D
oh, oops, sorry…
Wait, which book you talking about?
:)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/06/gospel…
So they now have a manuscript of the "Gospel of Judas" from 300 AD. If you take that as significant then I guess you accept all the evidence I put forth in this and the other post. Since there is more manuscript evidence and a shorter time gap for the NT Gospels as opposed to the Gospel of Judas and the other gnostic gospels.
What I find so crazy is that people will rush to the gnostic gospels like Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Cross or theories about possible Gospels like Q or Secret Mark, which make outlandish claims such as a giant Jesus coming out of the tomb, a cross coming out of the tomb and talking, or Jesus claiming that a women must first become a man before she can enter heaven while being written centuries later. But the same people doubt Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because of the miracles and being composed a couple decades later the time is too long. That makes no sense.
Those that push the gnostic gospels ignore those passages and focus on things that make Jesus seem less divine. They cut and past all the Gospels and all the manuscripts to make Jesus fit the image that they want. It's sad really.
The first reference we have to the Gospel of Judas comes from Irenaeus in 180 AD in which he dismisses it as heresy. If the gospel was written, being generous, 50 years earlier, then it would still be well after Judas' life. Even 100 years earlier would be after Judas died. So this cannot be anything close to an eyewitness account.
This period of time was a high point for the gnostic movement which claimed to have secret knowledge or gnosis – Greek for "know." You can see that in all the gnostic gospels they claim some secret idea or thought that no one had before. It claims salvation to be a result of what you know. This is why the gospel of Judas starts out with "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot."
But again why lend any credence to something written over 100 years after the fact, when you won't lend any credence to something with less than 30 years after the fact?
I find it odd that in both my posts on this topic, no one has come forward and said, "No you're wrong. Here is the evidence that says otherwise."
That is both encouraging and discouraging to me. It encourages me to know that no one has any real evidence against the veracity of the NT, but it discourages me that so few people are willing to analyze the data and evidence openly and honestly.
Here's my evidence. Where's the rebuttal?
I only pointed it out as kind of a joke. I don't lend any credence to ANY of the gospels actually. Historical standards at the time were not the same as they are today, and they were all written by partisans to the cause. Why trust any of them?
It makes some sense, because they don't want to elevate the apocrypha to canonical status, but by classifying these as authorative as the canon, they can then *reduce* the believability of the canon. Ok, maybe they don't think that way, but I think that happens.
Aaron,
If it makes you feel better, I don't believe in any of that stuff from the Bible simply because there's no way it happened. I don't care when the authors wrote it down – it never happened, so I don't have to worry about dates.
Yeah Aaron, nothing written down in the past really happened. Yeah. NOTHING can be corroborated, and archaeology and external historical sources must be wrong if they agree with the bible because Sam's a priori assumption is that the bible is wrong on all accounts. Call it the doctrine of errancy. Heh. I knew you weren't really interested in evidence. ;)
Walking on water, turning water into wine, being reborn – all of that nonsense Seeker.
So basically Sam, you have a predisposition to disbelieve anything of the "miracle" sort. You will automatically discount anything that deals with the supernatural. I can take that, I think you are wrong, but that better explains things.
I will attempt to work on that topic soon – the plausability of miracles.