The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?  




And I repeat that there are solid reasons why your cherished belief that Christianity is based upon "stories...recorded thirty years later...by many, many anonymous tellers" is simply crap.

But you can't let that go, because if you consider the alternative, your whole world changes.

As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.

Citations?

There's bland old Wikipedia which does a fair summary of the historical scholarship:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion

Concerning the first gospel written:

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70

So 40 years after the crucifiction (give or take) by someone who is a child of a convert.


How about Mathew?

Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[77] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[78] While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus.[79] According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention.[80] Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.[81]

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[78] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[78] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[82]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Luke:

Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[87] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.[88] Luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic.[89] Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' mission and message,[90] but Geza Vermes concludes that this theme is not authentic to the historical Jesus.[91] As is the case with Matthew, much controversy has surrounded the Lukan birth narrative.[80]

Some scholars[92][93] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[94]

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to as late as 90 AD.[95][96][97] Donald Guthrie argues, however, that Acts was written in the early 60s AD (since the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), and therefore the Gospel of Luke would have to have been written prior to that, around AD 60.[/url]

John:

John was likely composed at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Anatolia]Ephesus, though other possibilities are Antioch, Palestine and Alexandria.[103] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[104] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[105]

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[106][107] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[108] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[109][110] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[111]
Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][112]

I've left the hotlinks in the footnote live, so you can see what the text is based on.

Jenny-

Until I've been a member for 30 days, I'm not permitted to counter your Wikipedia links with links of my own.

However, I own and have actually read books that would call much of what the Wiki article says into question. So, I could provide plenty of sources for the view I have laid out in the OP.

But let's say for arguments' sake that you're right. the first gospel, Mark(?), was written around AD 70. So what? In the cultural context of Judaism, that would be NOTHING for the disciples to contend with.

See, it's your assertion that the Gospels cannot be reliable. And in order to discredit them, you have to accept the idea that no one could possibly have gotten the story straight after xx years. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of what we know of oral cultures, of the ability to memorize huge amounts of data and to recall it accurately, and of the role that the community of believers would have played in keeping the Jesus story within very narrow boundaries. IOW, I like the fact that the eye-witnesses wrote early and often, but I'm not dependent upon that fact. It's just another piece of circumstantial evidence that may help skeptics overcome their doubts if they think it through.

Be honest, if you had been a witness to something significant, and later you heard someone telling a false version of the event, you, as a living witness, would be in a position to call that person on the carpet for their additions, omissions and errors, wouldn't you?

But you won't concede that ability to the early Church. Nooooo, they were all biased and eager to expand the notion that Jesus was God. So, they just kept piling one miracle on top of another until the man became the God.

(The fact that there is no evidence that the Gospel changed over the course of time, is a problem, but why let that spoil a good thing? Just ignore it.)