Posted by Illuminati on 4/25/2005, 3:13 pm, in reply to "Validity of the Bible" On the other hand, one must not be naive or ignore obvious incentives to lie. Also the history must be believable in the context in which it is written and the writer must have some ability to have the facts on hand when he writes. Questions which one will naturally ask when he evaluates a historical source are: To me the assumption that people in Bible times didn't have an interest in facts seems completely unsupported. Why would they have preserved and written down the Jesus tradition if it was not important to them. If people just made things up as they went, why bother talking to eyewitnesses like Luke did and why refer to previous written accounts in preparing his book? Are we to believe Luke's book Acts is also a fabrication? To me these arguments just don't make sense. The early Christians had as much incentive to be certain their belief in Jesus was based on facts as we do today. Many of them suffered terrible deaths because of their beliefs. If they sat around and manufactured Jesus stories why would they then go to their deaths for the same beliefs? There is also no evidence that the early church used Jesus teachings as we do today as the basis of doctrines. They were observant Jews and were witnessing to fellow Jews and to those who believed the Hebrew holy books. Their authority was the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek translation called the Septuagent. They understood Jesus fulfilled those scriptures and gave the proper interpretation. However in doctrinal disputation they would refer to the book they held in common with other Jews, the scriptures. A good example of this approach is Paul. His writings were very early in the history of the Christian church and yet he rarely referred to the Jesus tradition. Paul would mention Jesus frequently and preach about Him but didn't often quote from Jesus particularly to support his theology. Paul's theology is completely supported by hundreds of references from the Hebrew scriptures. Paul's references to the Jesus tradition are so uncommon some people have written books asking how much of the Jesus tradition he actually knew. But we know he knew much since Luke his associate wrote one of the gospels. Also there are parallels in Paul's writings and the gospels which show he was acquainted with them, but he just didn't rely on the tradition for doctrines. It is in later books such as John's gospel which was probably written long after the synoptic gospels and after the basic Christian theology was worked out from the Hebrew scriptures that the Jesus tradition is allowed to take center stage. Since Christians considered Jesus the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the Hebrew scriptures, that evolution is exactly as it should have been. Because the early Christian church relied on the Hebrew scriptures as doctrinal authority and did not commonly use Jesus' sayings to support their doctrines they had no reason to modify His teachings to fit their theology. Indeed when one ready the writings of Paul and the stories in the Gospels one hears a different voice, different language and different emphasis. The book which seems to match the gospels most closely in tone is the book of James also considered very early by some people which was possibly written by Jesus' brother himself. To answer the questions posed above: On this basis I must conclude the early Christian church preserved the Jesus tradition as accurately as they could and viewed it's accuracy as fundamental to their beliefs.
206.206.120.230
To do history, one has to have some trust in the people who wrote the history provided there is reason to believe them. If one starts the historical study with the assumption the writer lied or didn't have any regard for the truth, the outcome of the study is predetermined. Those Biblical critics who claim the people at the time of the second temple era didn't care about the facts and made them up as they went along, they will based on that assumption arive at the conclusion that the New Testament is unreliable. Of course that would be the case if any research began with those same assumptions.
1. Why is this person writing?
2. Do they have incentive to tell the truth?
3. Do they have a reason to lie.
4. Is there any other evidence to corroborate their story.
5. Does what they say make sense in the culture and historical setting in which the story occurred.
6. What do we know about this person's station in life and is it otherwise exemplory?
When people believe something they want to know it is truth; today, yesterday and tomorrow.
1. Why is this person writing?
It appears they wrote to permanently record the facts of Jesus' life and teachings as accurately as possible.
2. Do they have incentive to tell the truth?
Yes, they believed Jesus was the Son of God and His teachings were from God.
3. Do they have a reason to lie.
I can't think of any reason they would want to lie.
4. Is there any other evidence to corroborate their story.
Yes, but I haven't gone into the historical and archeological evidence yet.
5. Does what they say make sense in the culture and historical setting in which the story occurred.
Yes, the Jews were looking for a Messiah and the disciples believed Jesus was Him. The topics of discussion and disputed with the Jews make sense from what we know of Jewish culture at that time.
6. What do we know about this person's station in life and is it otherwise exemplory?
We know of nothing which would disqualify the early Christian witnesses.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread