The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Ok, I'll play this game.  I enjoy it.

Me, too. And let me say that I really appreciate your post. You are the first person to actually engage the material that I have presented. So, for that I salute and thank you.

I'm going to trim some of my post and yours in order to prevent this thing from becoming ridiculously unwieldy. If you think  have missed something important, just let me know.

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.

Well said. If the disciples were lying, then nothing they said really matters, does it? Naturally, I will be arguing at some point that they had no motivation to do so, but for now, we're in agreement.  

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.

It looks like we are in the ballpark of one another overall, and I personally would not want to go to war over any of these dates. Let me just say this:  In the notes of my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSV-CE), the authors of the commentary Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Curtis Mitch state that due to the silence concerning the destruction of the Temple, "Matthew's Gospel can be reasonably dated before AD 70." Ignatius is a pretty reputable publisher.

That said, I think that pushing the dating as I did in my post is not without some justification. The argument is laid out and it IS plausible - even probable.

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.

Nice. Thank you.

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.

Wow. That was a typo on my part, and you are correct. I did mean the gospels and of course, all of Paul's epistles, that of Peter, etc. After all, they were martyred in AD 64 & 65, respectively. But I think John and probably the Johanine epistles were written after AD 70. Thanks for catching that; I will make sure that I have correct that line in my Word document, also.

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.

TRJF-

I think you have missed something here; I'm referring to the book known as the Acts of WHO? the Apostles? So, yes, I think it would be expected to contain some mention of the two greatest leaders of the Early Church, don't you? Especially in light of the fact that the deaths of lesser luminaries WERE mentioned by Luke in his two books.

So, this portion of my argument concerned Acts...not 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:

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.  

Hear! Hear! Are all of you skeptics hearing what this man is saying. You go, TR!    

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).  

Whoops. You may have overlooked this passage from Paul:

Colossians 4:14-18
14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings. 15 Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea. 17 Tell Archippus: “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” 18 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand. Remember my chains. Grace be with you.

and this written from prison in Rome:

2 Timothy 4:9-11
9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

and this:

Philemon 1:23-25
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

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.

James the brother of John was martyred in AD 44.

Acts 12:2
He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.

This occurred before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (c. AD 50)

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

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.

You mean other than Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria?  

Seriously, while the Pauline authorship of these epistles was questioned in the nineteenth century, the case against is neither airtight nor immune to criticism, and the tradition that Paul himself wrote these epistles can be convincingly defended.

I can go on with the rest if you like, but I've already given you much to think about. We agree in some points, at least, and I thank you in advance for your time.

Thoughts?