The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[TheRealJoeFish]

Ok, I'll play this game.  I enjoy it.

I.B.0. – Were the authors of the gospels actual eyewitnesses?

In order to establish the historical reliability of the New Testament, one key question to be addressed is whether the authors were actual eyewitnesses or had access to those who were. This process begins by establishing the dates that the books were written as accurately as possible.

Fair enough.  

I.B.1. - When were the gospels written?

Many people who are skeptical of the claims of Christianity argue that the books which record the life of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written decades or even a century or more after Jesus. Because of this time gap, they argue that the gospels cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts of the events which occurred in Jesus’ lifetime because it would not be possible for the author or the author’s sources to have been alive during Jesus’ lifetime.

For the sake of this discussion, assume that Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The closer the books of the New Testament were written to that date, the easier it is to accept the possibility that they are accurate records of the events that took place during His time on earth.

I think the bolded is only part true.  A significant length of time between an event and the recording of that event could make it more probable that facts are accidentally misstated or misremembered.  However, I don't believe the same holds true for intentional misstatements, misrepresentations, or biases.  In fact, I would argue that, as suggested before, people who believed that their master was immortal, then watched him die, would have far more motivation to embellish or lie than would people trying to give a retrospective account.  Either way, this isn't exceedingly important.

So, when were the Gospels written? Although estimates vary (with skeptics typically arguing for a later dating), mainstream scholars conservatively date the authorship of the four gospels as follows:

    Matthew - AD 65-85
    Mark - AD 60-75
    Luke - AD 65-95
    John - AD 95-100

The most likely times are: Matthew: 70 to 80 AD, almost certainly after Mark (pre-70 is a "minority view"); Mark: Almost certainly 67 AD (after the start of the first Jewish revolt in 66 but before the death of Nero in 68); Luke: probably 80 to 90 (contemporaneous or just prior to Acts); John: finished between 90 and 100; started earlier and revised multiple times.

Additionally, it is generally believed that the gospels (with the exception of John) were based upon oral tradition as well as written source materials known to scholars by names such as “M” and “Q”, etc. Like the autographs of the gospels, these documents are no longer in existence, but they would have pre-dated the gospels themselves by as much as decade or more.

For anyone reading, the Q Document is believed to have been a list of quotations attributed to Jesus.

I.B.2. – How low can we go?

In addition to this written pre-gospel material, the oral tradition and the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were still alive and able to speak about what they had seen and heard were available to the authors of the gospels. The existence of these two sources could push the dating of the gospel message back by many years – even to the days of the events themselves.

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support an early dating of the gospels.

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

When you say "The New Testament"... what do you mean here?  That at least the first book of it was written prior to 70 AD?  If so, you're almost certainly right.  If you mean the whole thing, or even the four gospels (or the 3 "synoptic" - that is, not John - gospels), you're almost certainly wrong.

The New Testament fails to mention the seige of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.

This is silly.  If I was writing a biography of John F. Kennedy, I wouldn't mention that JFK Jr. died in a plane crash.  You're trying to have it both ways - you're saying that the gospels are supposed to be accurate representations of Jesus's life, but then expecting them to contain the history of the times and such.

Simply put: virtually everyone who's ever studied the issue - aside from apologists doing everything they can to push the dates earlier and earlier (do we know anyone like that?) - would have to be wrong in order for your assertion to be correct regarding the dating of Luke.

Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

You get some things right about Luke.  He was highly educated, and a scholar.  Contrary to early tradition, he likely did not know Paul (or, at least, was not one of his companions), as evidenced by contradictions between their accounts (mostly concerning Paul himself).  

Your assertion that the Gospel of Luke was written prior to 62 is strange, especially because James, brother of John, died in 62. You've given no evidence that Luke would have necessarily included the death of James, brother of Jesus, had it taken place before he wrote his gospel.  But even if that's true, the death of James, brother of Jesus is variously dated to 62 or 69.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:

Luke 10:6-7
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

1 Timothy 5:17-18New International Version (NIV)
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Paul quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, and refers to it as scripture!  But there’s more. In his letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 53), Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.

No one believes that Paul wrote 1 Timothy (along with 2 Timothy and Titus).  These were written in the 90s or 100s.  It was very common in these days for people who respected (or wanted to profit off the name recognition of) an earlier scholar/author to sign with that person's name rather than their own.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles (accepted by even skeptical scholars) and the fact that what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggest that Luke was written prior to AD 53.

Now you're getting ridiculous.  You've pushed Luke at least 17 years earlier than the earliest date considered possible by scholars, and at least 27 years before the earliest considered likely.  This is apologetics at its... ahem... finest.

Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew 250 and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke wrote around AD 53.

It is correct that Matthew and Mark were written, in some form, before Luke.  But your dating of Luke is silly, and using this to push these two earlier (rather than analyzing them first) might be considered disingenuous.

In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. The first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul – following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition – had memorized and passed along verbatim:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony that can be dated to within 10 years of the event itself!

Ok.  1 Corinthians was probably written between 53 and 57.  

The bottom line

Given that as few as ten years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible but highly improbable that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.z

This is a complete non sequitur.