J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, discusses the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts
J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, discusses the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts
J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold Case Christianity, discusses the reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts
Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.
Horse manure.
Were the Gospel writers present during the "time of Jesus"? Simple answer -- NO.
Are there manuscripts from that time written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke? No?
I think they were oral traditions, written down by people who were not eyewitnesses to any of the events in question.
J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity, spoke at the University of Kentucky Christian Student Fellowship in November 2014 about the reliability of the New Testament. In this portion of the talk, J. Warner examines the dating of the Gospels.
This is certainly a simple answer. Of course it is only supported if someone actually owns a horse.
The authors of the canonical Gospels were not eyewitnesses and probably, not certainly but probably, didn't even know any person who actually was an "eyewitness" during the years, Jesus is said to have been walking about.
Are there manuscripts from that time written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke? No?
I think they were oral traditions, written down by people who were not eyewitnesses to any of the events in question.
Well, you're wrong. I've shown you why in the past, as I suspect many others have also. Won't waste my time again.
Nope, you haven't shown anyone that what you believe is supported by modern academic works. Your long list of people supporting early dating of the New Testament is either 19th century academics or modern evangelicals.
There is debate outside of churches over the period of composition for the texts. They range from the late 1st century to the late 2nd century, which combined with the multiple interpolations and late additions tells those who bother to read outside of their enclosed world that the dating is unsure but certainly not early to mid 1st century.
Just one point: Why were the books written in the Greek language by people who appear to have a wide knowledge of the Old Testament books and wrote in a learned style?
You just got gutted, Somerville.
Somerville foists a strawman, saying "we only have fragments of various passages that are dated to the mid to late 2nd Century..." He completely ignores WHY scholars date the WRITINGS (vs. fragments) to the first century. Besides early church father attestations that verify the traditional authors, there are many other factors.
Example:
"Arguments for Early Dates (Luke and Acts)
The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the 'former account' of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. This evidence includes these observations:
1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates 'the Messiah', and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy."
Much more in the link:
https://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dating-of-the-new-testament - by scholar Norman Geisler
Even if one grants that Luke and Acts originated circa 60-62, that is still 30 years AD and there is still the matter of translation from the language used by Jesus and his disciples. That means those stories were being passed from person to person for 3 decades before someone wrote them down - in another language.
"early church father attestations" are not something I would submit or accept as evidence. That's very biased testimony.
You just got gutted, Somerville.
Just one point: Why were the books written in the Greek language by people who appear to have a wide knowledge of the Old Testament books and wrote in a learned style?
Did you have a response for this question:
There are four accounts of the life of Jesus in the Bible -- four Gospels. None of them gives us the name of their author, but traditionally they are called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But for the past couple of hundred years, skeptical scholars have rejected these names. They have said that these were probably added later to give credibility to documents whose authors were unknown. We do not know for sure who wrote the Gospels. There is a lot to be said in support of the traditional authors. But even if these names are not right, the Gospels are still based on reliable testimony. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus.With contributions from: Professor Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews; Professor Craig Blomberg, Denver Theological Seminary; Professor Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary
Skeptical scholars used to believe that the Bible's accounts of Jesus were written hundreds of years after he lived, by people who didn't know anything about the historical Jesus. Professor Dan Wallace is one of the world's leading experts on the hand-written copies of the Bible's accounts. In this video he describes the discovery of the earliest copy of one of these accounts, the John Rylands Fragment of John's Gospel, known technically as P52. This discovery overturned the ideas of scholars, and showed that the accounts had been written much earlier than they thought. From the series 'Jesus Myths,' exploring modern myths about Jesus. With Professor Dan Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary
Horse manure.