![\"Practical](\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Practical-Apologetics-Graphic-e1447173892523-300x159.jpg?resize=300%2C159\")
Last time we focused on the authorship\u00a0of the Old Testament.\u00a0 We looked at three primary areas where the Old Testament is challenged.\u00a0 This article will address questions regarding the authorship of the New Testament and particularly the Gospels.<\/p>\n
Like the OT discussions, this is an overview of key areas targeted towards the layman. \u00a0As before, I’d suggest Lee Strobel’s\u00a0The Case for Christ<\/em> at a more introductory level or Geisler and Turek’s\u00a0I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist<\/em> at the intermediate level. \u00a0If you want to get advanced, look for William Lane Craig’s\u00a0Reasonable Faith<\/em>.<\/p>\n In my opinion, defending the historicity of the New Testament is actually far easier than the Old Testament. \u00a0The attacks are frequently focused on authorship and target the dates of the documents as well as the sources for the documents. \u00a0The crux of the effort is to separate the gospels from the events they describe. \u00a0This gives skeptics the supposed excuse to discount them an exaggerated legends rather than recorded history.<\/p>\n There are two important elements of the New Testament itself that must be remembered at the outset.<\/p>\n 1. The New Testament is a\u00a0collection<\/em> of documents by a variety of authors. \u00a0 It is not a single collaborative document like many attempt to treat it.<\/p>\n 2. Do not<\/strong><\/em> allow critics to apply a double-standard to the New Testament, especially with regard to the historical narratives of the Gospels and Acts. \u00a0The is a tendency for critics to hold the NT to a far higher – unattainable – standard than other historical documents. \u00a0Do not accept that.<\/p>\n So let’s get started…<\/p>\n Dating the Texts<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the most frequent criticisms encountered is that the texts cannot be considered reliable because of the time between the writing\u00a0and the events. \u00a0Many skeptics will date the gospels to the second or occasionally third century. \u00a0Then they group the traditional gospels with other pseudo-Christian texts of these later periods. \u00a0You then get these arguments.<\/p>\n 1. The attributed authors cannot possibly be the actual authors. \u00a0Due to the “late” dates of their writing, the people who are claimed to be the authors would be long dead.<\/p>\n 2. Too much time has passed between the actual events and the actual texts. \u00a0Because of this, legend has corrupted the actual events.<\/p>\n 3. Because of the late date, the claim is also made that equally valid texts are excluded to support an agenda. \u00a0This will be taken up in the next part of the series. \u00a0Keep the dating discussion of this article in mind, though, because these arguments also apply there.<\/p>\n The short response to the dating issue could<\/i>\u00a0be as simple as if the skeptics’ claims are valid, then we cannot trust any<\/i>\u00a0history account outside our own individual experience. \u00a0We can brush off the American Revolution or Civil War as nothing more than myths based on this logic. \u00a0This approach puts the skeptic on the same level as those who put the lunar landings of the Apollo missions as a vast, faked conspiracy.<\/p>\n Another key point in responding to these type of criticism is that the traditional dating and authorship go back to the earliest records of church history. \u00a0Until recently, there has never been a challenge to them. \u00a0If<\/i>\u00a0the dates and authorship claims did not<\/i>\u00a0go back to the beginning of the Church, perhaps the skeptic might have a case. \u00a0However, in the historical context, in questioning the dating (and authorship) the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the skeptic.<\/p>\n Even so, there are easy responses to address the criticisms.<\/p>\n Let’s begin with the last\u00a0of the Gospel’s written; John. \u00a0There is little argument from anyone that this was the last of the gospels to be written. \u00a0I’ve seen liberal scholarship often date John in the mid- or late-second century. \u00a0Conservative scholarship and tradition will date it in the late first century, commonly around 90 A.D. \u00a0Supporting this early date is the simple fact that there have been fragments found that have been dated to 120 A.D. \u00a0This easily supports the 70-90 A.D. date.<\/p>\n This earlier date also fits well with the peak of the gnostic heresy which questions the physical resurrection and a rejection of the “physical.” \u00a0One of the unquestioned aspects of John’s gospel is that it is a response to gnosticism. \u00a0This is especially apparent in the emphasis by John on the physical nature of Jesus, especially after the resurrection. \u00a0Remember that it is in John that the record of Thomas’ doubt is recorded.<\/p>\n With John’s date, being the last gospel written, then obviously the other three gospels would be written prior to 70 A.D. \u00a0This date is important because Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome during the rebellions in 71 A.D. \u00a0Consider also that these texts contain prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. \u00a0In texts that often center around the fulfillment of prophecy, that none of them would reference a clearly fulfilled prophecy is hard to believe.<\/p>\n This sets an upper limit for the first three gospels (known as the synoptic gospels) of 70 A.D. \u00a0The lowest possible limit is, of course, the death of Jesus around 33 A.D. \u00a0This is an extremely close time to recorded events in even modern history. \u00a0One could<\/i>\u00a0be satisfied here, but let’s see if we can narrow the window a bit more.<\/p>\n To do this,\u00a0let us\u00a0look first at Luke.\u00a0 Luke not only wrote the gospel that bears his name, but also the book of Acts.\u00a0 That these have the same author is not questioned by believer or skeptic. (At least not by credible skeptics.)\u00a0 What is interesting in the authorship is that Acts switches from third person to the first person “we” when Luke begins his travels with Paul, as is corroborated in Paul’s letters.\u00a0 In fact, Paul is not only the apostle who vetted his work, he is also the reason for Luke’s writing.\u00a0 Tradition has it that the gospel and Acts were written as part of the testimony and documentation for Paul’s first trial.\u00a0 Now<\/strong><\/em> we are between 60-64 A.D. – within 30 years of Jesus’ ministry and easily within living memory of eyewitnesses.\u00a0 Paul, in his letters, also\u00a0references Luke’s writing as scripture (1Tim 5:18) – another argument for the earlier date.<\/p>\n Luke gives us something else important regarding authorship.\u00a0 He notes in the beginning of the gospel that he used multiple sources for his work and researched it thoroughly.\u00a0 Tradition has one of the sources as Mary, the mother of Jesus.\u00a0 Considering the family perspective in Luke, this makes sense.\u00a0 Another source is what appears to be a lost work of material common to the synoptic gospels commonly referred to as “Q.<\/em>”\u00a0 He also mentions “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses,” so there were other firsthand sources.\u00a0 Finally, one of his sources is clearly the gospel of Mark, since he quotes much of Mark’s work in his own (as does Matthew!).\u00a0 That means, of course, that Mark has to predate Luke.<\/p>\n So…<\/p>\n Mark…<\/p>\n Then there is the gospel of Mark.\u00a0 I take the position that Mark is the earliest of the gospels.\u00a0 There are some who make the argument that Matthew is the older, but that is not important to this discussion.\u00a0 Based on what we already know, we can date Mark between the death of Jesus in 33 A.D. and 70 A.D.\u00a0 Tradition puts Mark around 50 A.D.\u00a0 Some might complain that I have used the word “tradition” to much in these datings.\u00a0 I would say that perhaps a better phrase would be “attributions to the earliest of church authorities.”\u00a0 And if the tradition is not sufficient, in the case of Mark we have physical evidence.\u00a0 Craig Evans is expecting to release research soon regarding an ancient fragment of Mark.\u00a0 This fragment is expected to be\u00a0dated at least to 80 A.D.\u00a0 I’ve heard reports in apologetics circles that it may go as far back as to the 50’s.\u00a0 In short, we are seeing physical evidence that points to the earlier dates.<\/p>\n Matthew – depending on your view, either used Mark as a source or was edited down to be a source for Mark.\u00a0 I’ll leave you to do the math as a matter of expediency.<\/p>\n So we have the gospels – including logical and physical evidence – in a time frame that is consistent with traditional authorship.\u00a0 There is one additional point of logic that comes to mind.\u00a0 In Matthew and John, you will hear the argument that the gospels took their name in order to create a tie to apostolic authority.\u00a0 Yet in Mark and Luke’s cases there is a pointless second layer added in that they wrote for<\/em> Peter and Paul, respectively.\u00a0 If the desire was an apostolic connection, it would have made much more sense to attribute the books to the related apostle.<\/p>\n History and Legend<\/strong><\/p>\n What is most important here, is that even without traditional dating, we have the NT gospels placed in the mid-to-late first century.\u00a0 We are within decades of the original events and within the lifetime of eyewitnesses or firsthand knowledge that could easily dispute the gospel claims.\u00a0 This is the environment in which we find skeptics levelling the claim of corrupted accounts\u00a0due to legend?<\/p>\n This dating is early enough to rule out the introduction of legend.\u00a0 Just as today, when legendary elements are introduced into historical accounts, there are many that would be quick to correct the record.\u00a0 As I’ve noted in earlier articles, other non-biblical histories, do not face such criticism even though they may have centuries between their writing and the oldest manuscripts.\u00a0 This is one of the double standards I mentioned earlier.\u00a0 It is totally fair to point this out and not accept the argument unless they are willing to question any<\/em> history as critically.<\/p>\n The legendary criticism also has another weakness.\u00a0 We do<\/strong><\/em>, in fact, have legendary accounts of biblical events in which to make actual comparisons.\u00a0 There are numerous gospels and acts from the second and third century in which legendary elements are clearly present.\u00a0 There are bits of extreme hyperbole, fanciful language and later literary styling that make this clear.\u00a0 One great example would be to read what is called the Infancy Gospels or the Acts of Peter.\u00a0 It is quickly clear that these are not historical accounts but rather the “pulp fiction” of the day.\u00a0 The writing between these texts and the canon is night and day.<\/p>\n Wrapping up<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not until recently that there has been any effort to challenge the dating or authorship of the New Testament.\u00a0 I find it difficult to accept such dates without compelling evidence to address the reasons mentioned in this article.\u00a0 That said, there are also many more arguments that can be made, though\u00a0they get out of the layman level that I am trying to maintain.\u00a0 Tools like literary criticism and analysis are often feared by Christians as things that exist to tear apart the Bible.\u00a0 That is the furthest from the truth.\u00a0 While critics may use these tools, they are just that: tools.\u00a0 Believers can – and do – use them, as well, to effectively defend the faith.<\/p>\n The short end of this is that there is no compelling reason to doubt the accuracy of the events recorded in the scripture.\u00a0 Skeptics ask for extraordinary<\/em> evidence to believe the written record and yet the written record is just that –\u00a0extraordinary.<\/p>\n The remaining question in the biblical reliability part of this discussion is to consider whether there are other texts that should be included.\u00a0 Keep this dating discussion in mind, because it is an important part of what we will address in the next article.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last time we focused on the authorship\u00a0of the Old Testament.\u00a0 We looked at three primary areas where the Old Testament is challenged.\u00a0 This article will address questions regarding the authorship of the New Testament and particularly the Gospels. Like the OT discussions, this is an overview of key areas targeted towards the layman. \u00a0As before, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Practical Apologetics - Reliability of the Bible, Part 3 Sorry for the delay, but work and family had to come first.","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[16,108,76,20,21,73,30,110,44,50],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5ymfK-bt","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=711"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":766,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/711\/revisions\/766"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thechristiangeek.net\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}