| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2005 02:41:09 AM |
| Object: |
Why The New Testament Is Historically Reliable |
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable
Gary Habermas
Excerpted from Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
The credibility of Scripture is certainly a multifaceted issue. In this
chapter, I will examine one specific angle-whether the New Testament is
a historically reliable document. Topics such as precise textual
issues, genre considerations, specific critical methodologies,
scientific concerns, and the doctrine of inspiration are beyond the
focus here.1 Instead, I will examine several areas that indicate that
the New Testament speaks accurately when it makes historical claims
that can be checked. I will begin by assessing some conventional areas
of consideration.
Customary Strategies
Typically, defenses of the reliability of the New Testament have
emphasized several items: the superior manuscript numbers, early dating
of these copies, as well as the authoritative authorship and dating of
the original compositions. I will respond briefly to each, since they
all still have an important part to play. Since these defenses have
received much attention, however, I will only highlight a number of
relevant issues.
Manuscript Evidence
To start, are we even able to ascertain whether the text of the Bible
is that of the original authors? While this issue relates strictly to
the reliability of the text rather than to the historicity of its
contents, the issue is still important in the overall scheme of this
discussion. Generally, several qualities enhance manuscript value,
assisting textual scholars in arriving at the best reading of the
original text. The strongest case is made when many manuscripts are
available, as close in time to the original autographs as possible.
Wide geographical distribution of the copies and their textual families
are likewise crucial. Of course, having complete texts is essential.
In light of these criteria, the New Testament is the best attested work
from the ancient world. First, it has by far the greatest number of
existing manuscripts. Ancient classical works are attested to by very
few full or partial manuscripts-usually less than ten. In comparison,
over five thousand full or partial Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament exist. Thousands of additional texts exist in other
languages, especially Latin. This overwhelming number of copies yields
a much stronger base for establishing the original text.
Concerning the date between the original writing and the earliest
copies, ancient classical works generally exhibit gaps of at least
seven hundred years. The interval significantly lengthens to twice this
amount (or longer) with certain works by a number of key writers such
as Plato and Aristotle. In contrast, the Bodmer and Chester Beatty
Papyri contain most of the New Testament, dating about 100-150 years
later than the New Testament, using an approximate date of A.D. 100 for
its completion. The Codex Sinaiticus is a complete copy of the New
Testament, while the Codex Vaticanus is a nearly complete manuscript,
both dating roughly 250 years after the originals. These small gaps
help to ensure the accuracy of the New Testament text.
Further, significant portions of some ancient works are missing. For
example, 107 of Livy's 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of
Tacitus's original Histories and Annals, only approximately half
remain.
The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New
Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T.
Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all
the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant
copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in
the world."3 Even Helmut Koester summarizes:
Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving
manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a
rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there
are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only
surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle
Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end
of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the
time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT
textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than
that for the textual criticism of classical authors.4
The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text.
John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in
our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds,
"The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems
from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the
autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the
remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian
doctrine.6
Authorship and Date
The above described quality of manuscript data shows that the New
Testament manuscripts were careful copies of what the original authors
produced. However, this does not necessarily guarantee that the
contents of these writings are historically accurate. The traditional
strategy has been to argue that the Gospels and Acts were written by
eyewitnesses, or those writing under their influence, thereby ensuring
as much as possible the factual content. A somewhat more cautious
position is that these five books were at least influenced by
eyewitness testimony.7
Evangelical scholars often date each of the synoptic Gospels ten or so
years earlier than their critical counterparts, who usually prefer
dates of roughly A.D. 65-90. There is widespread agreement on placing
John at roughly A.D. 95. This places the writing of the manuscripts
thirty-five to sixty-five years after the death of Jesus, close enough
to allow for accurate accounts.
Perhaps the most promising way to support the traditional approach is
to argue backward from the Book of Acts. Most of this book is occupied
with the ministries of Peter and Paul, and much of the action centers
in the city of Jerusalem. The martyrdoms of Stephen (7:54-60) and the
apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book concludes with Paul
under arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet Acts says nothing concerning the
deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s A.D.) or James, Jesus' brother (about
A.D. 62). Moreover, accounts of the Jewish War with the Romans
(beginning in A.D. 66) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) are also
strangely absent. Further, the book ends enigmatically with Paul under
house arrest, without any resolution to the situation.
How could the author of Acts not mention these events or resolve Paul's
dilemma, each of which is centrally related to the text's crucial
themes? These events would even seem to dwarf many of the other
recorded occurrences.8 It is difficult to resist the conclusion that
the author did not record these items simply because they had not yet
occurred. These omissions argue persuasively for an early date for the
composition of Acts, before the mid-60s A.D.
If it is held that Luke was written prior to Acts but after Mark and
Matthew, as perhaps most critical scholars do, then all five books may
be dated before A.D. 65. It is simply amazing that Acts could be dated
A.D. 80-85 and the author not be aware of, or otherwise neglect to
mention, any of these events.9
Additional Support
Extra-biblical sources are another avenue worth pursuing when
determining whether the New Testament texts speak reliably concerning
historical issues. While less frequently used by scholars, a number of
ancient secular sources mention various aspects of Jesus' life,
corroborating the picture presented by the Gospels.10 The writers of
these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius,
and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our
knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even
Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and
practices. Greek historian and satirist Lucian and Syrian Mara
Bar-Serapion provide other details. Several nonorthodox, Gnostic
writings speak about Jesus in a more theological manner.11
Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than
fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection
of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church. Most frequently
reported is Jesus' death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated
approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesus' death, these secular sources
are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.
Altogether, these non-Christian sources mention that Jesus fulfilled
Old Testament prophecy, performed miracles, led disciples, and that
many thought he was deity. These sources call him a good teacher or a
philosopher and state that his message included conversion, denial of
the gods, fellowship, and immortality. Further, they claim he was
crucified for blasphemy but rose from the dead and appeared to his
disciples, who were themselves transformed into bold preachers.12
A number of early Christian sources also report numerous details
concerning the historical Jesus. Some, such as the writings of Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, date from A.D. 95-110, or just ten
years after the last New Testament book.13
Information of a different sort can be derived from archaeological
artifacts. While few provide direct confirmation of Jesus, they do
provide helpful background information. Places such as the Bethesda and
Siloam pools, the foundations of Herod's temple, possible locations of
Pilate's Praetorium, and the general vicinity of Golgotha and the
Garden tomb all enlighten modern readers. Much information has been
gained about ancient Jewish social customs, and many details have been
revealed concerning the cities, towns, coinage, commerce, and languages
of first-century Palestine.14 A.N. Sherwin-White has furnished a
remarkable amount of background information corroborating many details
of the trial of Jesus, as well as other legal scenes in the New
Testament.15
In a few cases, more specific data is available. For example, the Latin
inscription "Titulus Venetus" helps to illumine Augustus's census. A
Latin plaque mentions "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judaea." The bones
of a first-century A.D. crucifixion victim, Yohanan, tell us much about
the gruesome spectacle of crucifixion. The Nazareth Decree, perhaps
circulated by Emperor Claudius between A.D. 41 and 54, threatens tomb
robbers with death.16
In summary, those who use traditional strategies to support the
historical reliability of the New Testament assert that superior
manuscript evidence shows we have essentially what the authors wrote.
By linking closely the authors and composition dates to the events
themselves, it is argued that the writers were in the best position to
know what actually occurred. Additional data are provided by
extra-biblical and archaeological sources, showing that, when these
details are checked, the New Testament fares well.
A surprising amount of traditional data corroborates the life and
teachings of Jesus. Many questions remain, to be sure, but the
available evidence indicates that believers are on strong ground when
reporting the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the
historical Jesus.
Recent Strategies
Scholarship in recent years, however, has moved in other directions.
While not necessarily denying the traditional arguments just discussed,
scholars are frequently less interested in the question of the New
Testament's reliability. Nonetheless, among the contemporary tendencies
to which critics gravitate, there are still many gems to be
mined-treasures that point in additional ways to the historical
trustworthiness of the New Testament. Some of the prizes turn out to be
powerful tools. Four such approaches are outlined below.
Critical Rules
The trend among recent critical scholars is not to accept the
reliability of the Gospels in a wholesale manner. Rather, the tendency
is to apply certain analytical principles to ascertain which individual
texts or portions of texts have the greatest likelihood of being
historically accurate. In so doing, these biblical scholars are
following the trend set by historians in their own examination of
ancient texts.17 Following is a brief inventory of some of the rules
that apply to written sources.
(1) Early evidence is strongly preferred, and in reference to Jesus,
data from A.D. 30 to 50 would be exemplary.18 If these sources can be
drawn from (2) the accounts of eyewitnesses to the occurrences, this
would provide two of the strongest evidences possible. Historian David
Hackett Fischer dubs this last criterion "the rule of immediacy" and
terms it "the best relevant evidence."19
(3) Independent attestation by more than one source significantly
strengthens a factual claim from antiquity. As historian Paul Maier
notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source,
while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact
unimpeachable."20 Even the highly skeptical Jesus Seminar emphasizes
items "attested in two or more independent sources."20
Some details are enhanced by additional criteria. (4) The principle of
embarrassment, negative report, or surprise reveals disparaging remarks
made by the author about himself, another person, or event toward which
the author is friendly and has a vested interest.22 (5) Precisely the
opposite can also provide a different sort of evidence: when an
antagonistic source agrees about a person or event when it is not in
the source's best interests to do so. Maier even thinks that "such
positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind of
evidence... If Cicero, who despised Catiline, admitted that the fellow
had one good quality-courage-among a host of bad ones then the
historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous."23
(6) A skeptical criterion of historicity is that of dissimilarity or
discontinuity. A saying, for instance, can be attributed to a person
only if it cannot be plausibly attributed to other contemporary
sources. In the case of Jesus, the chief issue is whether a Gospel
teaching can be ascribed to either Jewish thought or to the early
church. Historian Michael Grant calls this the "principal valid method
of research."24
(7) Another criterion specifically applied to Gospel studies is the
presence of Aramaic words, substrata, or other indications of a
Palestinian origin. Such conditions are thought to bring us closer to
Jesus' teachings.25
An overall test is (8) coherence. Does an event or teaching fit well
with what is known concerning other surrounding occurrences and
teachings?26 Even better, does the proposed event illuminate other
known incidents, thereby making them more intelligible?
Certainly one of the strongest methodological indications of
historicity occurs when (9) a case can be built on accepted data that
are recognized as well established by a wide range of otherwise diverse
historians. Historian Christopher Blake refers to this as the "very
considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of
professional historians."27
Combining a number of these critical rules of evidence, I propose what
I call the "minimal facts" historical method, using precisely those
data that satisfy at least two major standards. (1) Each event must be
exceptionally well attested on several grounds, as indicated by
criteria such as those listed above, and (2) the events must be
admitted as historical by the vast majority of scholars who treat this
specific topic. Of these two tests, the first one (strong confirmation
for multiple reasons) is clearly the most significant. In chapter 7, we
viewed Jesus' miracles and his resurrection in light of these
criteria.28
Other historical rules could be mentioned,29 but those described above
are sufficient for out current purposes. The functional value of
critically applied rules such as these can be seen in many contemporary
studies. They are often the decisive tests that are applied to the
Gospel accounts in order to derive much of the basis for what is
perhaps the major emphasis of current New Testament scholars today, the
study of the historical Jesus. Other considerations may also be
employed,30 some of which will be pursued below, as we attempt to build
a case for the historicity of the New Testament.
The Gospels and Ancient Historiography
A second trend among a few scholars today is to defend the Gospels
based on standards derived from ancient historiography. Both because
the study of the historical Jesus is so prominent today and because too
many analyses simply miss the benefits of such a comparison, I will
devote a little more room to this discussion, but from a historical
perspective only.31
R.T. France takes this approach regarding the authorship of the
Gospels. While he thinks a plausible case can be made for the
traditional writers, he suggests a different tack. He contends that
"authorship... is not a major factor in our assessment of the
reliability of the gospels."32 France insists that we evaluate the
Gospels by the same criteria that are used in studying ancient
writings. Not only are the Gospels the earliest sources for Jesus, but
the nature of the tradition behind them should cause us to treat them
seriously.33
Some scholars still approach the Gospels in terms of authorship,34 but
France's point is noteworthy. Rather than view the Gospels as largely
nonhistorical, religious propaganda, as do some critics, ancient
historians and classical scholars often treat the Gospels quite
seriously. These writings are frequently viewed as important sources
for information concerning Jesus, opposing the more radical versions of
criticism encouraged by some contemporary New Testament scholars. In
fact, ancient historians regularly detect an adequate basis for
historical data, especially in the Gospels. Roman historian
Sherwin-White leveled the following accusation at modern biblical
scholarship:
So, it is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been
growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel
narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so
gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism... that the
historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot
be written. This seems very curious.35
Although the reference to form criticism is a bit outdated,
Sherwin-White's chief point is clear. Because the Gospel narratives are
"no less promising" than Greco-Roman sources, the same standards
commonly applied to ancient non-religious history can also be applied
to the New Testament records. The result yields a significant amount of
factual content.
Michael Grant is another ancient historian who reaches similar
conclusions. By employing normal historical techniques in regard to the
New Testament, he concluded that much can be known about the historical
Jesus.36 Grant specifically rejects the methodology of radical
theologians who insist that the New Testament is guilty until it is
proven innocent, since "that also is too extreme a viewpoint and would
not be applied in other fields."37 The key, therefore, is the
application of the same historiographical principles to both the
Gospels and ancient documents.
At this point, critics often raise two major objections to the
comparison of the New Testament writings to ancient Greco-Roman
sources. (1) The Gospels contain many reports of supernatural events,
which militates against their claim to be historical documents. (2)
Further, the Gospels cannot be compared to ancient, nonreligious
writings, since the latter recorded history while the former were
written by authors whose religious doctrines significantly colored
their perspectives. In short, we are told that the Gospels are of a
different genre. The writers were not as concerned with discerning
history as with relating miracles and composing religious propaganda
written for the purpose of indoctrination. Regarding the charge of
miraculous claims, the critic is simply mistaken to separate the
Gospels from ancient historical documents. Ancient histories regularly
recounted supernatural reports of all sorts, including omens and
portents, prophecies, healing miracles, various sorts of divine
interventions, as well as demonic activity. Examples are literally too
numerous to miss. For instance, in his widely recognized account of
Alexander the Great, Plutarch begins by noting Alexander's likely
descent from Hercules. Later he tells how the gods favored and assisted
Alexander in his battles and how Alexander talked with a priest who
claimed to be the son of the god Ammon and then with Ammon himself.
Near the end of his life, Alexander took almost every unusual event to
be supernatural, surrounding himself with diviners and others who
foretold the future.38
But such is quite normal fare in ancient historical writings. Tacitus
reports worship of the caesars, even by the Roman Senate, and that
people saw normal occurrences such as crop failure as omens.39
Suetonius provides a wider range of examples, including the working of
fate, sightings of spirits and ghosts of deceased emperors, prayers to
the gods, prophecies, rulers who read horoscopes and animal entrails,
as well as an entire host of omens and portents manifest in comets,
lightning, dreams, and even birds. Strangely, some of the caesars,
convinced by signs that their death was imminent, awaited their demise
in a dire state of mind.40 It is true that these ancient writers may
have at times simply recorded what certain people believed or thought
they saw. In fact, on occasion they questioned whether certain
occurrences were truly supernatural.41 But there can be no doubt that
at other times these same writers clearly accepted the supernatural
reports.42
These examples are sufficient to assist us in reaching a verdict
regarding the supernatural reports in ancient histories. These reports
do not keep us from proclaiming their texts to be reliable historical
accounts, as modern historians explicitly recognize.43 So why should
the Gospels be treated far more severely for the same reasons,
especially when they report the supernatural perhaps even less
commonly?
Another objection might also be raised here. Why should any ancient
report of supernatural activity be accepted today? This question
involves several philosophical issues, as well as the subject of
historical evidence.44 We are justified in rejecting the Greco-Roman
supernatural claims precisely because they are not accompanied by a
sufficient amount of evidence. On the other hand, many New Testament
miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus in particular, are surrounded
by exceptional evidence. Even critical scholars such as those in the
Jesus Seminar think that the best data indicate that Jesus performed
healings of some sort. Marcus Borg concedes that there are some "very
strong" historical reasons that favor this conclusion. But can truly
supernatural events be excluded? Borg thinks that we cannot rule them
out.45 (See chapter 7, which discusses Jesus' miracles and resurrection
in detail.)
What about the second charge, that religious purposes kept the Gospel
authors from recording history? Numerous responses to this complaint
are found in the writings of A.N. Sherwin-White, Michael Grant, and
other historians.46 (1) Several prominent writers in antiquity composed
works with purposes fairly similar to the intent exhibited in the
Gospels. One example is Plutarch, who even declared that "my design was
not to write histories, but lives."47 Grant explains that the Gospel
authors "would have applauded" many of these ancient efforts. The
secular sources are still well recognized as historical, so why should
the Gospels not be treated similarly?48
(2) The sort of thoroughgoing propaganda literature that some critics
believe the Gospels to be was actually nonexistent in ancient times.
Sherwin-White declares, "We are not acquainted with this type of
writing in ancient historiography."49
(3) The Gospels are dated a maximum of several decades after the life
of Jesus, while other ancient authors often recount events that took
place even centuries earlier. For instance, Livy comments on Rome's
beginnings by relating accounts from hundreds of years before his
time.50 Plutarch, too, writes extensively about persons who lived
centuries before him.51 But modern historians are able to reconstruct
the ancient past, even in cases in which their sources report events
that are vastly earlier.
(4) Critics sometimes point out what they believe are discrepancies in
the Gospels that undermine their claim to historicity. From one angle,
each case could be examined on its own grounds.52 Yet, ancient
histories sometimes "disagree amongst themselves in the widest possible
fashion," but this fails to deter the modern scholar from
reconstructing the past.53 In answering the same question about the
Gospels, Maier states, "The earliest sources telling of the great fire
of Rome, for example, offer far more serious conflicts... Yet the fire
itself is historical: it really happened."54
(5) Contemporary theologians are too often satisfied simply to discuss
the religious experiences of the earliest Christians, as if this were
an end in itself. However, historians pursue adequate causes behind
these experiences.55
(6) One New Testament writing that has been confirmed by surprising
amounts of external data is the Book of Acts. As Sherwin-White argues,
"For Acts the confirmation of history is overwhelming." Although he
thinks that Acts is no less given to propaganda than the Gospels,
Sherwin/White still concludes that "any attempt to reject its basic
historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman
historians have long taken it for granted."56
(7) Even if radical criticism is applied to the Gospels, this still
should not thwart the discovery of much historical data in these works.
Although the Gospel writers' primary concern may have been theological
in nature, it does not automatically follow that they would thereby
have been unable to preserve the relevant historical facts in the
process. Theological or moralizing motives can coexist with the
reporting of facts.57
For many reasons, then, historians see a number of weaknesses in the
critical methodology that is so popular with certain contemporary
theologians. In sum, if the same criteria that are regularly applied to
other ancient writings are also implemented by New Testament scholars,
a solid historical basis emerges for the life and teachings of Jesus.58
However, it is far from the case that all New Testament scholars have
adopted the stance of radical criticism. A.M. Hunter maintains that
there are several reasons for believing that the Gospel presentation of
Jesus is essentially reliable. (1) The earliest believers were Jews who
were very careful about faith, fully preserving the initial traditions
of Jesus' life and teachings; (2) the Gospel authors were "in a
position to know the facts about Jesus"; (3) Jesus taught in such a
manner that his teachings could be more easily remembered; (4) all four
Gospels correctly reflect the first-century Palestinian milieu; and (5)
in spite of differences, the same portrait of Jesus emerges from each
of the four Gospels.59
By applying the same methods to the Gospels that are applied to other
ancient documents, then, scholars have shown that these four volumes
provide accurate depictions of Jesus' life.60
The Writings and Thoughts of the Apostle Paul
At present, next to the historical Jesus, perhaps the most popular New
Testament area of research is the writings and thoughts of the apostle
Paul. Due to the exceptionally high respect given to Paul by critical
scholars, his epistles are therefore one of the best ways to approach
aspects of the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New
Testament.
The majority of critical scholars question or reject a few of the
epistles that bear Paul's name-usually some of the prison and/or
pastoral epistles.61 But Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and
Philippians are rarely questioned, even by skeptics, and 1
Thessalonians and Philemon are widely respected. At least the first
five, and often the last two, belong to the corpus that recent scholars
refer to as Paul's "undisputed letters."62 In spite of his critical
approach, Helmut Koester states that all seven books are "generally
accepted as genuine without doubt."63 Even G.A. Wells acknowledges that
a group of writings is unanimously considered Pauline, while personally
admitting as genuine eight of Paul's epistles-the above seven plus
Colossians.64
Therefore, scholars can trace historical paths from Paul's accepted
epistles to the historicity of Jesus or early Christian beliefs. What
might such approaches look like? Three are described below.
One route is to list the historical data about Jesus-both the events of
his life and his teachings-that are specifically found in Paul's
accepted epistles. Jesus was born as a Jew (Gal. 3: 16) from the family
of David (Rom. 1:3) and lived under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4). Jesus had
brothers (1 Cor. 9:5), one of whom was James (I Cor. 15:7), as well as
twelve disciples (1 Cor. 15:7). Paul knew that at least some of Jesus'
brothers and apostles had wives (1 Cor. 9:5). In fact, Paul knew
personally James, as well as apostles Peter and John, having spent time
with at least the first two on more than one occasion (Gal. 1:18-2:16).
Paul also relates a few personal qualities about Jesus. He was poor (2
Cor. 8:9),65 a servant who acted with humility (Phil. 2:5,7-8),
meekness, and gentleness (2 Cor. 1O:l). Though he did not act on his
own behalf, he was still abused by others (Rom. 15:3). Further, Paul
also knew a number of Jesus' teachings and encouraged believers to obey
them. This is clearly indicated when he specifically refers to Jesus'
words (I Cor. 7:lO; 9:14; 11:23-25). A number of times, his point seems
to been taken from one of Jesus' sayings in the Gospels. Some of these
instances include the topics of divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7:10-1
l), ministers being payed wages (1 Cor. 9:14), paying taxes (Rom.
13:6-7), the duty to love our neighbors as we do ourselves (Rom. 13:9),
and ceremonial cleanliness (Rom. 14:14). On topics such as women, the
treatment of sinners, and society's outcasts, Paul also seems to have
been aware of Jesus' attitudes and teaching. His assertions about
specific titles reflecting Jesus' deity are another important area for
comparison with Jesus' own teachings (Rom. 1:3-4; 10:9). Paul so
encourages believers to be vigilant in light of Jesus' second coming (1
Thess. 4:15), which would happen like the thief that comes in the night
(1 Thess. 5:2-11).
Paul provides the most details concerning the last week of Jesus' life,
speaking frequently of these events due to their centrality to the
gospel. He gives particulars concerning the Lord's Supper, even citing
the words Jesus spoke on this occasion (1 Cor. 11:23-25). Paul speaks
often of Jesus' death (Rom. 4:25; 5:8), specifying crucifixion (Rom.
6:6; Gal. 2:20) an mentioning Jewish instigation (1 Thess. 2:14-15). He
tells how Jesus was buried, rose again three days later, and appeared
to numerous people, both individually and in groups (1 Cor. 15:3-8). He
is now at God's right hand (Ram. 8:34).66
Paul's recognized epistles, as accredited sources, provide a rough
outline of Jesus' life and teachings. When Paul's authorship is granted
to other epistles, we gain additional sources from which we can draw
information.67
Another direction is provided by C.H. Dodd, who argued forcefully that
"a comparison, then, of the Pauline epistles with the speeches in Acts
leads to a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of
the apostles."68 As such, critical investigation can establish the
"essential elements" of "apostolic Preaching" [sic] back to an early
date.69
A somewhat similar but more radical approach is taken by New Testament
historian Paul Barnett. Totally apart from the Gospels and Acts, he
argues that we can gain an understanding of the earliest apostolic
activity before and after Easter from Paul's epistles alone. Suffice it
to say, he outlines such a case, arguing from "passing references in
Paul's letters" to "our earliest window" of primitive apostolic
teachings, soon after Jesus' ministry.70
In all three of these approaches, Paul's writings provide the primary
historical groundwork from which we may reconstruct the central
portions and the overall contours of the early Christian message.
Critics seldom provide any additional grounds for their positive
approach to Paul, apparently thinking that this is unnecessary. But
such reasons are not difficult to find. In the earliest period after
the close of the New Testament canon, at the end of the first century,
at least three writers knew his books well. Clement of Rome (c. A.D.
95-96), Ignatius (c. A.D. 107), and Polycarp (c. A.D. 110) quote or
otherwise refer to statements in twelve of the thirteen letters
traditionally attributed to Paul. Only Philemon is exempted, probably
because of its brief, nontheological nature. The other twelve epistles
are cited almost ninety times! Of this total, 1 Corinthians is
mentioned over thirty times, the most referenced of Paul's letters from
this early date.71 Clement testifies to the early belief in the
authenticity and inspiration of Paul's first letter to Corinth: "Take
up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle." In it, Paul spoke "in
the Spirit."
Very rarely do even skeptics doubt the Pauline authorship of this work.
In fact, we could hardly hope for more critical consensus. Not even
G.A. Wells protests the authorship of I Corinthians, including it among
those texts that "are universally accepted as genuinely Pauline."72
Scholars are equally agreed on the approximate date of 1 Corinthians.
Paul first visited the city of Corinth roughly A.D. 51-52 (cf. Acts
l8:l-18). His first epistle to them was written between 53 and 57,73
approximately twenty-five years after Jesus' death.74
We are on solid critical ground, therefore, in accepting 1 Corinthians
as the apostle Paul's work, dating from a comparatively short time
after Jesus' death. On matters concerning the historical Jesus, Paul
was an authoritative source, an eyewitness who was close to the data he
records.
Creeds or Traditions
What was the content of the earliest apostolic preaching before the
first New Testament book was written? The vast majority of people in
the first-century Mediterranean world were illiterate, so it was
necessary for them to learn orally.75 This requirement meant that the
easiest way for the central elements of a message to be remembered long
after they were heard was for them to be presented in a brief, easily
retainable manner.
In the New Testament, we find numerous statements that actually predate
the texts in which they are embedded. These creeds or traditions are
often concise, catchy sayings that are packed with meaning in a minimal
number of words. They provide the clearest examples of the apostolic
teaching that occurred in the earliest years after Jesus' death but
prior to the first canonical writings. As such, this is one of the most
important, as well as most exciting, topics in New Testament studies.76
Scholars have pointed out several textual indicators that these creeds
are present.77
The clearest indication of a creedal statement occurs when a writer
specifically tells us that he is passing on such a tradition. The best
example is Paul, who distinctly states on various occasions that he is
repeating teachings or traditions, sometimes explaining that they have
been given to him by others.78 Other indicators include the presence of
a stylistic rhythm, a repetitive word pattern that shows up elsewhere
in the New Testament, a different syntactical configuration from the
immediate context, the inclusion of vocabulary or style that are not
the author's normal speech patterns, along with the presentation of a
fairly simple, unevolved theology.79
In these early creedal statements, we find numerous reports about
Jesus. He was born in the lineage of David, came from the town of
Nazareth, was preceded by John the Baptist, had twelve disciples,
preached, performed miracles, and fulfilled Old Testament Scripture.
Several other details are narrated concerning the Last Supper, Jesus'
appearance before Pilate, and the confession he gave before this Roman
ruler. Multiple creeds also report that Jesus was crucified and died in
Jerusalem and was buried. But he was resurrected three days later and
appeared to many of his followers, both individually as well as in
groups. Later, he ascended to heaven and was glorified. His miracles
and especially his resurrection showed that God vindicated him along
with his message, and many believed in him. These early confessions
also ascribe to Jesus the titles of deity, such as Son of God, Lord,
Christ or Messiah, and Savior.80
The value of these creedal statements can hardly be overestimated. Not
only do they report significant aspects regarding Jesus' life, but they
do so from an exceptionally early time period that is very close in
date to the events themselves. Perhaps even more crucial, they reflect
the preaching and teaching of those who were closest to Jesus, from the
earliest period of the church. While a number of these traditions are
reported by Paul, many others are not. These latter examples fill in
even more details concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.81
Conclusion
This chapter reveals that the New Testament fares exceptionally well in
terms of its historical reliability, actually exceeding what is often
expected of an ancient text. We have in the New Testament essentially
what the authors originally penned, and the texts have been confirmed
time and again by various means. Tough questions will always have to be
addressed, but we have a highly evidenced document from which to
proceed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Some of these subjects are addressed in other chapters, such as those
by Walter Bradley and Winfried Corduan.
2For information on New Testament manuscript evidence, see John A.T.
Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977), 33-38; F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 16-18; Henri Daniel-Rops,
ed., The Sources fur the Life of Christ (New York: Hawthorn, 1962),
chap. 4 (by Daniel-R0ps), 41-42.
3Robinson, Can We Trust? 36. Atheist Antony Flew agrees in Gary R.
Habermas and Antony G.N. FIew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The
Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987), 66.
4Helmut Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2 vols.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), vol. 2,16-17. Koester goes on to
explain that this manuscript "richness" and "wealth" even raises
difficulties not encountered in the classics, regarding families of
manuscripts, their derivation, and readings.
5John W. Wenham, Christ and he Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 180.
6Ibid., 186-88.
7In recent decades, a number of scholars have supported some of these
options for the authorship of the Gospels and Acts. For example, see
John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1986), 181-82, 191, 196-97; R.A. Cole, The Gospel according to St. Mark
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 28-50; Robert Gundry, Matthew (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); C. Stewart Petrie, "The Authorship of 'The
Gospel according to Matthew': A Reconsideration of the External
Evidence," New Testament Studies 14, no. 1 (October 1967): 15-33;
Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), 15-22; E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel recording to Luke
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965), 2-4; Ray Summers, Commentary
on Luke (Waco: Word, 1972), 8-10; Raymond E. Brown, The GospeI
according to John (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), vol. 1, chap.
7; Raymond E. Brown, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965),
129-31; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1971), 8-35; R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St. John
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 11-20; F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the
Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 19; Robinson, Can We
Trust? 71-94; Bruce, The New Testament Documents, chap. 4; Paul
Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical
Evidence (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1986); Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.:
Intervarsity Press, 1990), 43-53,81-84,113-25,252-83.
8This is not an argument from silence, in light of the similar items
(in both content and geography) that the author does record.
9See Robinson, Can We Trust? 71-73; Gundry, Matthew, on the date of
Matthew; Craig Blomberg, "The Historical Reliability of the New
Testament," in Reasonable Faith, ed. William Lane Craig (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1994), 206.
10While it is true that secular references to Jesus are generally brief
and sometimes derived from Christian sources, it does not follow that
they should be largely ignored, as is often their fate.
11For specific details, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus
(Joplin, MO.: College Press, 1996), esp. chap. 9. Compare R.T. France,
The Evidence for Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1986);
F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Edwin Yamauchi, "Jesus outside the New
Testament: What Is the Evidence?" in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael
Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).
12For details, see Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 11.
13See J.B. Lightfoot, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1891, 1956). A discussion of these and other early
sources can be found in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 10.
14France, Evidence for Jesus, chap. 4; Bruce, New Testament Documents,
chap. 8.
15A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(Oxford: Oxford University, 1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).
16Habermas, Historical Jesus, chap. 8.
17A notable examination of this entire topic is C. Behan McCullagh's
Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1984), esp. 17-33. Other historical texts will be listed below.
18This time frame is emphasized by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and
the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospel: The Search for the Authentic Words
of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 25-26.
19David Hackett Fischer, Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of
Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 62. Fischer includes
here an event's archaeological "remains," placing this even above
"direct observations." On the import of eyewitnesses in ancient Greek
writing, see Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and
Modern, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994), 38-39.
20Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a
Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperCollins,
1991), 197.
21Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 26.
22Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York:
Macmillan, 1977; Collier Books Edition, 1992), 202-3. Cf. ibid., 23.
23Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 198-99.
24Grant, Jesus, 202.
25Perhaps no one has done more on this subject than Joachim Jeremias.
For example, see his famous work on the term abba in The Central
Message of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), 9-30; also
The Parables of Jesus, 2d rev. ed., trans. S. H. Hooke (Upper Saddle
River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972), 100-114; cf. Norman Perrin,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967),
37-41.
26Cf. W. B. Gallie, "Explanations in History and the Genetic Sciences,"
in Theories of History: Readings from Classical and Contemporary
Sources, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 397-98; the
idea in critical New Testament research is pursued in Norman Perrin,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967),
43-45.
27Christopher Blake, "Can History Be Objective?" in Theories of
History, 331.
28I employ this twofold test in all my publications on Jesus'
resurrection. For example, see Historical Jesus, 158-67; and
Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980; Lanham: University
Press of America, 1984), 24-26,38-41.
29For instance, some propose the presence of plural forms-an item is
more likely to be historical if it is found in more than one literary
pattern. Grant judges that this is "not very decisive" Jesus, 201). We
will also look below at a major indication of early material-the
presence of creeds or traditions in the New Testament.
30Again, the scope of this inquiry requires us to exclude from
discussion a number of relevant details, especially regarding ancient
historiography, such as those mentioned by Lucian of Samosata in How to
Write History (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959), esp. 7-15.
Breisach includes other items on pages 64, 68-69, 72.
31I will say very little concerning the literary aspects of this issue,
involving, for example, an examination of the Gospel's genre as
biography, history, or novel. For an overview, see L.W. Hurtado,
"Gospel (Genre)," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospel, ed. Joel B.
Green, Scott McNight, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove, Ill.:
Intervarsity Press, 1992).
32France, Evidence for Jesus, 124.
33Ibid., 122-25.
34See some of the more recent scholars in note 7 above.
35Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 187.
36Grant, Jesus, 199-200; cf. also 176.
37Ibid., 201.
38Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (Dryden
translation), Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard
(Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica and University of Chicago, 1952), see
541, 553, 565,575-76.
39For some instances, see Tacitus, Annals, 1:11, 19,28,42,55; 12:43;
14:22; History, 5:13.
40Examples can be found in Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (Baltimore:
Penguin, 1957): Julius Caesar, 88; Augustus, 100; Tiberius, 74-75;
Gaius Caligula, 57, 59; Claudius, 45-46; Nero, 56; Vespasian, 4, 25;
Titus, 10; Domitian, 23.
41Plutarch, Lives, 5 75-76; Tacitus, Annals, 1:28; Suetonius, Twelve
Caesars: Nero, 56, Vespasian, 4.
42For some examples, see Plutarch, Lives, 541; Tacitus, Annals, 1:55;
12:43; History, 513; Suetonius, TweIve Caesars: Claudius, 46;
Vespasian, 25; Domitian, 23.
43See Moses Hadas's point on this explicit issue of Tacitus's textual
embellishments, where he concludes that, in terms of ancient methods,
"Tacitus never consciously sacrifices historical truth," calling him
Rome's "greatest historian." See Hadas's introduction to The Complete
Works of Tacitus, in The Modern Library, trans. Alfred John Church and
William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Random House, 1942), xvii-xviii,
ix, respectively. Translator Robert Graves remarks similarly that it is
possible to allow for Suetonius's extravagances and still conclude that
he is "trustworthy." See Graves's foreword to Twelve Caesars, 7.
44On both subjects, two helpful collections of essays are Richard
Swinburne, ed., Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1989); R. Douglas and
Gary R. Habermas, eds., In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case
for God's Action in History (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press,
1997).
45Marcus Borg, Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of
Discipleship (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987), 67-71. For some
detailed textual evidence, see the massive text by Graham H. Twelftree,
Jesus the MiracIe Worker (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press,
1999).
46Some of the following material, with far less detail, is contained in
my chapter "The New Testament," in Why Believe? God Exists! ed. Terry
L. Miethe and Gary R. Habermas (Joplin, MO.: College Press, 1993),
chap. 25.
47Plutarch, Lives, 540-41.
48Grant, Jesus, 182.
49Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 189. This does not mean that the
Gospels and Acts are precisely the same literary genre as ancient
biographies and histories, only that some of the same standards should
be applied.
50Titus Livius, The History of Rome, trans. D. Spillan (London: Bell
and Daldy, 1872), book 1:1-3.
51Even the table of contents of Plutarch's Lives illustrates this point
quite well.
52Two helpful works here are Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When
Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton: Victor
Books, 1992); and Gleason L. Archer Jr., Encyclopedia of BibIe
Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
53Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 187.
54Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 180.
55Grant, Jesus, 181-82; Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 179-80,
189,196-98.
56Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 189. Details of his claims are provided
especially in chapters 3-5. See also the exhaustive work by classical
scholar Cohn Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic
History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisensbrauns, 1990).
57Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 189-91; Grant, Jesus, 182.
58For more details concerning these critiques, see Sherwin-White, Roman
Society, 186-93; Grant, Jesus, esp. 180-84, 199-200.
59Details are found in A. M. Hunter, Jesus-Lord and Saviour (Grand
Rapids: Eerdsmans, 1976), 39-41.
60See France, Evidence for Jesus, 124.
61Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Timothy, and Titus.
62N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real
Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 8. Cf. similar
comments by Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search
for the Jew of Tarsus (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998),
who extends the core group of critically recognized Pauline writings to
1 Thessalonians and Philemon (109-10), and Wenham, who also includes 1
Thessalonians when referring to "the overwhelming majority of scholars"
(Christ and the Bible, 24; cf. 13).
63Koester, History and Literature, 52.
64G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus,
1988), 19-22.
65Although this could well refer to the incarnation rather than to
Jesus' social condition.
66For a recent, detailed discussion, see David Wenham, Paul: Follower
of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
3-7,338-72,380-92. For other lists, see Barnett, Is The New Testament
Reliable? 131-36; Amedee Brunot, "The Gospel before the Gospels," in
The Sources for the Life of Christ, ed. Henri Daniel-Rops, trans. P.J.
Hepburne-Scott (New York: Hawthorn, 1962), 110-14; Habermas, Historical
Jesus, 32-33.
67One of the distinctives of Wenham's treatment of Paul is not only
attempting to study the "Jesus traditions" found in this apostle's
writings but to challenge those who are less positive about such a move
(Wenham, Christ and the Bible, 18-19).
68C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1980), 31. Note here that Dodd is arguing from the primitive
speeches in Acts (see below) rather than from the book as a whole.
69Ibid., 26. For Dodd's entire argument, see 16-31.
70Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997), 91-102, 133, 164. The quoted words appear on pages 91 and 94,
respectively.
71Lightfoot's above edition of The Apostolic Fathers highlights
citations of Scripture portions. For the actual figures provided here,
I am indebted to an unpublished essay by one of my former graduate
students, Kevin Smith ("References to Paul by Ignatius, Polycarp, and
Clement," 30 April 1992).
72Wells, Historical Evidence for Jesus, 21.
73Guthrie argues for 53-57, with 57 the preferred date of most scholars
(New Testament Introduction, 457-59); Koester places it at 52-55
(History and Literature, 103-4).
74For our purposes here, it is not an issue whether 1 or 2 Corinthians
contains parts of other letters written by Paul to this church (cf.
Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 313-14).
75Witherington, Paul Quest, 230-31.
76The classic study on this topic is Oscar Cullmann's The Earliest
Christian Confessions, trans. J.K.S. Reid (London: Lutterworth, 1949).
Other major critical studies include Joachim Jeremias, Th Eucharistic
Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (London: SCM Press, 1966); Dodd,
Apostolic Preaching. For additional details, see Habermas, Historical
Jesus, 143-57.
77Perhaps the clearest listing of what follows in the next paragraph is
provided by Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology, trans. John
Marsh (London: SCM Press, 1955), 338-39. See also Markus Barth,
Ephesians 1-3, Anchor Bible Commentary (New York; Doubleday, 1974),
6-10.
78See especially 1 Cor. 11:2,23; 15:3; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:15;
3:l; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 1:9.
79Examples that fit one or more of these patterns include Luke 24:34;
Rom. 1:3-4; 10:9; 1 Cor. 16:22b; 2 Cor. 5:21; 8:9; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim.
3:16; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Rev. 1:4; cf. Mark 7:3. Further, the early
apostolic preaching in Acts (2:14-39; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32;
10:34-43; 13:16-41) presents several examples of concise phrases that
contain brief snippets of theology.
80Some of the creedal material that summarizes these beliefs are Luke
24:34; Acts 2:22-24, 30-32; 3:13-15; 4:10-12; 5:29-32; 10:39-41;
13:37-39; Rom. 1:3-4; 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor. 11:23ff.; 15:3-8; Phil. 26-11;
1 Tim. 2:6; 3:16; 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 4:2.
81For a discussion of this data, see Habermas, Historical Jesus, chap.
7.
.
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The New Testament Is Historically Reliable |
31 Oct 2005 05:26:43 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 01:41:09 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable
Delusion or utter ignorance are two possibilities.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The New Testament Is Historically Reliable |
01 Nov 2005 07:08:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:26:43 -0500, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 01:41:09 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable
Delusion or utter ignorance are two possibilities.
And stupidity.
But he's not alone. So many of them offer it as "proof" to an audience
they know doesn't grant it.
And then throw a hissy fit, turning nasty and attacking us when it is
pointed out.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pramod Subramanyan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The New Testament Is Historically Reliable |
30 Oct 2005 07:10:02 AM |
|
|
This chap is never going to reply to any of the objections you raise,
so don't bother posting anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The New Testament Is Historically Reliable |
30 Oct 2005 12:44:56 PM |
|
|
Pramod Subramanyan wrote:
This chap is never going to reply to any of the objections you raise,
so don't bother posting anything.
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Not Historically Reliable:
It is made up.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Numbaz" |
|
| Title: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
30 Oct 2005 02:05:02 PM |
|
|
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
30 Oct 2005 03:37:27 PM |
|
|
"Cardinal Numbaz" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1130702702.880034.96880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
Because Thinking leaders know what and why they believe.
jt
--
Without the second amendment
the first amendment means nil.
www.townhall.com
www.newsmax.com
www.nranews.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
01 Nov 2005 01:41:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:37:27 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
"Cardinal Numbaz" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1130702702.880034.96880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
Because Thinking leaders know what and why they believe.
"Leading thinkers" are only of use to people who are unable to do it
for themselves.
jt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Blue Hornet" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
30 Oct 2005 03:55:39 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
30 Oct 2005 04:29:28 PM |
|
|
"Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130709339.640330.257660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
Oxymoron: A liberal who looks like a cow.
jt
--
Without the second amendment
the first amendment means nil.
www.townhall.com
www.newsmax.com
www.nranews.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 11:49:17 AM |
|
|
John Tibbs wrote:
"Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130709339.640330.257660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
Oxymoron: A liberal who looks like a cow.
jt
--
Give me some milk or else go home.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 07:00:26 AM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 07:47:09 AM |
|
|
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
--
zamboni #2139
Is that your cell number or your prison ID number?
jt
--
Without the second amendment
the first amendment means nil.
www.townhall.com
www.newsmax.com
www.nranews.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 08:30:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Heard you the first time. Still doesn't make any sense, therefore
isn't funny.
Apparently, you are attempting to equate a liberal with a
moron...okay, that's fine, everyone has an opinion, and I'm not a
liberal; but you are, therefore, equating an "oxy" with a cow. An
"oxy" is not a cow. Now, even if you meant "ox", an ox is not a cow
So, then, if you meant "a liberal who looks like a castrated bull" it
still isn't funny because I know of no liberals who look like an ox,
nor would I associate looking like an ox to me a particularly liberal
trait. Plus, there is no such word as "oxmoron"
Like I said... doesn't make any sense, therefore isn't funny.
--
zamboni #2139
Is that your cell number or your prison ID number?
jt
No, there were 2138 before me. The last zamboni unit had a bad
motivator.
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimC" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 08:53:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Heard you the first time. Still doesn't make any sense, therefore
isn't funny.
Apparently, you are attempting to equate a liberal with a
moron...okay, that's fine, everyone has an opinion, and I'm not a
liberal; but you are, therefore, equating an "oxy" with a cow. An
"oxy" is not a cow. Now, even if you meant "ox", an ox is not a cow
So, then, if you meant "a liberal who looks like a castrated bull" it
still isn't funny because I know of no liberals who look like an ox,
nor would I associate looking like an ox to me a particularly liberal
trait. Plus, there is no such word as "oxmoron"
Far too much detail. Jojo does not have the
subtlety to grasp the meanings of the
combining parts of "oxymoron," and therefore
cannot do much better than pie-in-your-face
slapstick.
*These* are exact quotes of Jojo:
"Potatoe and tomatoe" was considered correct spellin in
Indiana when I lived there.
...Smells like a rotten left-wing Jew who has claimed to
know everything but actually knows very little of reality.
I'd rather smell ***** than that.
I think the most profound qualification for assignation target would
be to send young "minds of mush" into crowds to kill masses of
innocent people.
When I'm wrong (almost never) I'm man enough to own
up to it.
His target for "assignation" in the penultimate quote
was Yasser Arafat. We were able to get Tibbs to
go into obliging detail concerning his frankly
unusual desires.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 09:48:16 AM |
|
|
"JimC" <jimcolli@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1130770430.259862.261010@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the
Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Heard you the first time. Still doesn't make any sense, therefore
isn't funny.
Apparently, you are attempting to equate a liberal with a
moron...okay, that's fine, everyone has an opinion, and I'm not a
liberal; but you are, therefore, equating an "oxy" with a cow. An
"oxy" is not a cow. Now, even if you meant "ox", an ox is not a cow
So, then, if you meant "a liberal who looks like a castrated bull" it
still isn't funny because I know of no liberals who look like an ox,
nor would I associate looking like an ox to me a particularly liberal
trait. Plus, there is no such word as "oxmoron"
Talk about not making sense..WOW!
Far too much detail. Jojo does not have the
subtlety to grasp the meanings of the
combining parts of "oxymoron," and therefore
cannot do much better than pie-in-your-face
slapstick.
*These* are exact quotes of Collier:
Tibbs, if you would oblige me by concatenating those two ironic statements
at a
Mensa event in California where I happen to be in attendance, I can
*promise*
you I will deliver the worst knock-out punch you're ever going to receive
smack
dab at mid-face in full view of everybody. And then I will throw you out of
the
event. Your wife can stay, but not you.
You are the rock bottom stupidest person on Internet, bar none.
See how Collier shows his frustration when he is beaten?
jt
.
|
|
|
| User: "JimC" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 10:02:07 AM |
|
|
John Tibbs wrote:
Tibbs, if you would oblige me by concatenating those two
ironic statements at a Mensa event in California where
I happen to be in attendance, I can *promise*
you I will deliver the worst knock-out punch you're
ever going to receive smack dab at mid-face in full
view of everybody. And then I will throw you out of
the event. Your wife can stay, but not you.
You are the rock bottom stupidest person on Internet, bar none.
[The previous] are exact quotes of Collier:
That's right.
See how Collier shows his frustration when he is beaten?
jt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 11:51:44 AM |
|
|
JimC wrote:
zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Heard you the first time. Still doesn't make any sense, therefore
isn't funny.
Apparently, you are attempting to equate a liberal with a
moron...okay, that's fine, everyone has an opinion, and I'm not a
liberal; but you are, therefore, equating an "oxy" with a cow. An
"oxy" is not a cow. Now, even if you meant "ox", an ox is not a cow
So, then, if you meant "a liberal who looks like a castrated bull" it
still isn't funny because I know of no liberals who look like an ox,
nor would I associate looking like an ox to me a particularly liberal
trait. Plus, there is no such word as "oxmoron"
Far too much detail. Jojo does not have the
subtlety to grasp the meanings of the
combining parts of "oxymoron," and therefore
cannot do much better than pie-in-your-face
slapstick.
*These* are exact quotes of Jojo:
"Potatoe and tomatoe" was considered correct spellin in
Indiana when I lived there.
That's no excuse: Dan had plenty of time to learn the standard English.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "2015 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
31 Oct 2005 09:53:44 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:30:58 -0600,
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Heard you the first time. Still doesn't make any sense, therefore
isn't funny.
Apparently, you are attempting to equate a liberal with a
moron...okay, that's fine, everyone has an opinion, and I'm not a
liberal; but you are, therefore, equating an "oxy" with a cow. An
"oxy" is not a cow. Now, even if you meant "ox", an ox is not a cow
So, then, if you meant "a liberal who looks like a castrated bull" it
still isn't funny because I know of no liberals who look like an ox,
nor would I associate looking like an ox to me a particularly liberal
trait. Plus, there is no such word as "oxmoron"
Like I said... doesn't make any sense, therefore isn't funny.
--
zamboni #2139
Is that your cell number or your prison ID number?
jt
No, there were 2138 before me. The last zamboni unit had a bad
motivator.
Worked in Maple Leaf Gardens, did it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
01 Nov 2005 01:44:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Just plain moron: A rightard twit who posts the same lame, unfunny
joke twice in the same thread.
--
zamboni #2139
Is that your cell number or your prison ID number?
jt
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxymoron of the month nomination |
01 Nov 2005 04:28:50 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote in message
news:jahfm15e36jf86426ff331nfhdflr1j3er@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:47:09 GMT, "John Tibbs" <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
wrote:
<zamboni30000@knowshpamatyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o55cm11sgc2rppdnd9q7ogql7ieg8k407a@4ax.com...
On 30 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0800, "Blue Hornet" <hornet.blue@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cardinal Numbaz wrote:
words of truth wrote:
Leading Thinkers Explain Why They
Believe
I like the way the Subject has been renamed. For Oxymoron of the Year
I nominate:
Creation Science
How about "biblical scholar"
Oxymoron: A liberal that looks like a cow.
Just plain moron: A rightard twit who posts the same lame, unfunny
joke twice in the same thread.
Is that right, bovine face?
jt
--
Without the second amendment
the first amendment means nil.
www.townhall.com
www.newsmax.com
www.nranews.org >
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
