The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

How do you know there were no independent witnesses?

---

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

Who was with Jesus and Satan when they were in the wilderness?  

Did anyone see Jesus pray in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36)?

And how could anyone but Mary possibly have known she was a virgin?

How difficult would it have been for Jesus to have told the disciples about his experience in the desert?

And the disciples were with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, so they knew he was in prayer. I would agree that there was no time for discussion after his arrest, but after his resurrection, Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days, and THE BIBLE SAYS:

3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 

I think it's pretty reasonable that they might ask, "Dude, what were praying about in the Garden? You were sweating blood!"

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, try this: Luke interviews Mary for background on a book he's writing on about her son, Jesus. So, Luke says, 

"Joseph died when Jesus was young, and you never had any other children." 

And Mary says, 

"When I was young, I consecrated myself as a perpetual virgin to the Lord. As I grew older, I couldn't stay in the Temple during my monthly period due to the laws concerning ritual cleanness. Therefore, it was necessary for me to marry as a protection from the unwanted advances of young suitors who might not have honored my vow. Joseph was a widower, much older than me, and he promised to take me into his home and protect my virtue. So, no, we never had any other children."

---

Ah, but Nestor, I'm not buying into your assertion that the authors used Jesus as their mouthpiece.

However, let's pursue this for a moment. You've read the thread and know my positions, but I need to know yours.

1. Who are the authors of the gospels?
2. When were they written approximately?
3. What was their motivation for writing?

Mark - Unknown, 65 - 75 AD
Matthew - Unknown, 75 - 90 AD
Luke - Possibly someone named Luke who knew Paul, 75 - 90 AD
John - Someone in the "Johannine community," a network of churches in Asia Minor, 90 - 100 AD

I usually go with a dating that is somewhere in the middle of conservative and liberal scholars, as that seems to be a safe bet considering the arguments for and against earlier or later dates.

While all of the questions you posed admit of only speculative guesses, determining motivation is probably the most uncertain, but I see the purpose of the Gospels as primarily setting forth the theological ideas circulating amongst the early churches, with an eye to the virtuous life as embodied by the ideal godly man, whom they believed was exemplified by Jesus. Like myths that came before them, they use allegories and miraculous signs to convey their beliefs about the relation between man and deity, with a sort of Herodotean view of history, employing a narrative structure as a means to express their conceptions of truth in a manner that the average first-century listener will remember when the story is being read in front of a private audience.

---

I should also note that Mark is almost certainly the earliest, as all of the other Gospels (with the greatest exception in John) adhere to a similar format and often expound on ideas in that gospel, Matthew and Luke borrowing entire sections as well as mirroring each other to a substantial degree that one must have either been correcting the other's work (such as in placement or ordering of events and sayings) or they were both using an earlier common source (the Q hypothesis).

Well done, Nestor. You are one of the few shining lights in this forum.

I disagree with your bit on the motivations, but that's to be expected, no? 

My only question would be this: Why would all four of the gospels and the book of Acts omit the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the deaths of Peter and Paul (ca. AD 64-65)? Acts ends sort of awkwardly with Paul languishing in prison...

---

Long post!

---

OK Randy, this is the second time you've brought up an exact same argument that I already addressed and debunked. This means I can only conclude you are either just messing with us, or you're hoping to repeat yourself endlessly until we give up argueing so you can declare victory. You're trying to use the courtroom analogy for the third time now, after I ripped it to shreds twice. And you brought up that McVeigh guy, after I posted information about what other evidence there was and asked you to show me how there was only hearsay evidence against him. You ignored me and continued anyway.

Here is the problem, in my opinion. I think you don't believe in Christianity for any of these reasons. What we have here are rationalisations. You already believe in Christianity before we even start the discussion, for other reasons. Maybe they are emotional reasons. Maybe indoctrination. Maybe personal experiences. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The ease with which you slip between the bible being the claim and then talking like you've actually seen evidence of God stoning false prophets to death gives this up.

Maybe it would be better if you told us the real reasons you believe in Christianity. Because it's become very clear to everyone here that it's not due to simply analyzing the bible. You may have convinced yourself of that, but I'm afraid I don't believe it.

It would be like me trying to make the case Lord of the Rings actually happened. I'd say, "Well, Aragorn killed like 1,000 orcs by this point in the story! So I think he's not your average guy, so when he says the ring of power needs to be destroyed, we should listen to him!" What I have done is exactly what you're doing, assuming the story is true to try and prove the story is true. When called out on this, I fall back on "What I know about Aragorn", which is what points to the fact that I have other reasons to believe the story other than just reading it. Maybe I think I've really met Aragorn, maybe I had a powerful dream about it. Maybe everyone has always told me he is real. Do you see the comparison?

So would you be prepared to share the real reasons you believe? The things that convince you. I would guess you have had personal experiences which count far more than words on a page.

If I'm being presumptious, I apologize. You know better than me, I'm only trying to assess the situation. But if there are no other reasons, that leaves you trying to make this case without referring to what you "know" about God and Jesus etc.

Regarding God: according to the bible, he used to actually talk to people directly. He had no problem doing this. He even walked around the earth where he could be clearly seen. If God was walking around, there would be no argument from me that he is real. If I could hear him talking to everyone, I would believe he was real. I wouldn't necessarily believe he is exactly as described in the bible or any other book, but at least I'd know we're actually dealing with something existent. What you are saying is that my determination to not believe in God is more powerful than god's ability to provide evidence. I think you flatter me too much. I'm open minded. Provide me evidence, and I'll change my mind. But just pointing to a book and telling me it's true is not new evidence, it's still the claim. If you communicate with God, maybe you could ask him why he's unable or unwilling to convince atheists he even exists, or to convince other theists they are worshipping the wrong God. He used to get real angry about that, false gods! Now he does nothing, he even lets people run around killing in a false god's name. (This is putting forward the hypothetical consequences of believing Yahweh is real.)

Yeah, the bible is a book of atrocities. When I referred to Jesus telling people to murder someone, you said "It's still murder". Well, God orders not just individual murders but the deaths of whole towns right down to the babies and and animals. Is that "still murder" or is it OK because God ordered it?

I think for this to go anywhere, we need you to do some introspection and share with us your real reasons. Because if you're not messing with us, you've already run out of arguments and are repeating ones I've already addressed.

I can see you making real efforts to engage with us, and I appreciate that. But if you repeat yourself again, going back over things we already debunked, then I'm going to have to leave the discussion. I made my challenge informally back on page 2, then much more formally later. It hasn't been met, in my opinion.

---

Rob-

I'm honestly at a loss as to what I have failed to address. Maybe I'm just an idiot...we can't discount that possibility...or maybe there are like 30 of you and only one of me so I'm not as focused as I should be on any one train of thought. My apologies for that.

But each time you have said, "My posts are still unanswered", I have gone back to look at what I have missed. And each time, I have tried to address them again.

Now in this post, you claim that you have debunked the courtroom analogy. "Ripped it to shreds twice", have you? Not that I've seen. And what I'm trying to get you to understand is that if you talked with a police detective or an attorney, you would come away with a greater appreciation for indirect or circumstantial evidence than you seem to have at the moment.

We have no direct, empirical evidence of the resurrection, Rob, but that's okay. We don't NEED it to make the case for Christianity. There are many things in science that cannot be proved empirically, but scientists propose hypotheses based upon what provides the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Now, the circumstantial evidence I posted in the OP as well as in #270 suggests that it is not only plausible but probable that the gospels contain accurate information about Jesus because they can be objectively evaluated and determined to be historically reliable. Can I go line by line and PROVE that Jesus spoke every single word in every single parable in precisely the order presented? Of course not. But what I can do is to demonstrate that the authors were knowledgeable and reliable in the details which we can verify - and this gives us the overall impression of general reliability. IOW, we can say with some confidence that the authors were probably telling the truth about the significant details of Jesus' life because they were clearly telling the truth about those things which we can verify.

The historical reliability of the NT is the best explanation of ALL the facts (as opposed to theories about late dating, anonymous authorship, editorial bias, etc.).

The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of ALL the facts (which must include the multiple attestation provided by the historically reliable authors of the NT).