Who checks the facts?

[Radagast]

I recommend, Christian historian and exegete, Dr Paul Barnett's book, Jesus and the Logic of History (IVP).
I think it could be good for you to read some books on introduction to the Bible (Geisler & Nix), The Canon of the Bible (F F Bruce).

Good advice there.

Luke 1:1-4 (ESV) tells us how Luke gathered his material.

And Acts 1:1 tells us that Acts is the sequel to Luke.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

You state, 'The bible is not a historical book. It doesn't matter WHEN anything was written'. What causes you to reach that conclusion?

Was Jesus not a person in history who walked the streets of Jerusalem and died on an actual cross? Did King David actually live? Was Paul a real historical person? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

How about the events of the Book of Acts? Did they happen in history or is that some other kind of reality?

Oz

You're right Oz. I didn't explain myself properly.

Everything in the bible starting with Abraham is actual and real history.

What I meant was, and I hope NNS understood this, is that the bible was not written to be a history book.
It was written to demonstrate the relationship between God and Man.
It was written so that Man may know God and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ.
It was written so that we may know the truth and the truth may set us free. (from the bondage of sin).

I did tell him that our faith is based on the Apostles and what they passed down, including the resurrection. Maybe in an earlier post.

It just wasn't written to be a history book, although a lot of history is in there. I love the book of Ruth, for instance, and it shows a lot about the culture of the time.

Did you know that it was doubted that Jericho even existed? And that it wasn't ever certain that Peter lived in Capernaum? Until fairly recently when archeologists discovered remains and found a house in Capernaum with Peter's name on it - probably where early Christians gathered on the first day of the week.

And what I meant is: It doesn't matter WHEN a letter was written, it could have been 50 AD or 65 AD. What difference? We'll never know for sure. What matter is that it was WRITTEN!

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain better.

Wondering

 

[JohnDB]

Israel is one of the smallest countries (everything is within a three hour drive)

The Bible is the oldest book, most sold, and used....

But yet they cause such huge amounts of trouble....
So either they are correct and people are in trouble or we just like trouble.

 

[GodsGrace]

Israel is one of the smallest countries (everything is within a three hour drive)

The Bible is the oldest book, most sold, and used....

But yet they cause such huge amounts of trouble....
So either they are correct and people are in trouble or we just like trouble.

I'm slow.
Please explain better...

Wondering

 

[Radagast]

I did tell him that our faith is based on the Apostles and what they passed down, including the resurrection.

And in talking to non-Christians about the trustworthiness of the Bible, dating and authorship become important. It's significant that John was an eyewitness, Mark recorded what the eyewitness Peter saw, and Luke collated the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses.

 

[GodsGrace]

And in talking to non-Christians about the trustworthiness of the Bible, dating and authorship become important. It's significant that John was an eyewitness, Mark recorded what the eyewitness Peter saw, and Luke collated the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses.

I said this in my original post to NNS. About John. Also, it's not definitive that Mathew wrote his gospel. Also, some will say that Mark was written first and some will say that Mathew was. It gets confusing.

Let me say, however, that pinpointing a date to any book or letter is a little dangerous.
I'm sure you know that the date depends on which theologian you're reading. What if you give a date, and then it turns out to be wrong? What if you like one theologian and then the non-Christian speaks to someone else who uses a different theologian?

I have many bibles here. I don't find consensus as to dates, and even the authors are questionable. Did Paul write Hebrews??

My whole point is to not treat the bible as the non-Christian would want you to. It's trustworthy because we trust the Apostles. It's trustworthy because of the resurrection.

I tend not to concentrate on dates and authors. If the non-Christian needs this to further the conversation, I'd say he's not ready spiritually and will not accept anything anyway.

I could be wrong. (huh?) !!

Wondering

 

[turnorburn]

Whenever we're approached we must remember that the devil hates our savior and will stop at nothing to discredit his message..

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

[for_his_glory]

Well, after checking a study bible, I think I found what I was looking for. Some dates that at least have an estimated range within the author's lifetime instead of possibly a decade after the author died of a book or a letter died. The issue of fact checking either source of information is still something for me to look into. But I think the study bible has more information on where it got it's figures, so they are places to start.

I'm sorry if you all though I was making a big deal out of nothing. It was a decently big deal to me, because if the theory of bible history, (and texts within history) don't match up with who is associated with writing the bible book, then there's an issue of trust. Either the bible books are wrong by being written after the Aposole claiming to have written it had died. Or the professionals who claim to be experts on the subject matter are wrong. When I started this search for information, my goal was to find some common ground of information between me and the non believer I was talking to. Instead I found a reason to doubt what's said of bible scholars, and the need for deeper reasurch to find what's authentic and what's fluff passed on as scholarly.

I use The New Open Bible KJV and at the beginning of each book it gives a biography and dates that might help you in your search.

 

[Radagast]

Also, it's not definitive that Mathew wrote his gospel.

What I said was: It's significant that John was an eyewitness, Mark recorded what the eyewitness Peter saw, and Luke collated the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses.

It's trustworthy because we trust the Apostles.

But you have to explain to people the connection between the Apostles and the Bible we have today.

If the non-Christian needs this to further the conversation, I'd say he's not ready spiritually and will not accept anything anyway.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm slow.
Please explain better...

Wondering

OK. The New Testament is almost 2000 years old and the Old Testament is over 5500 years old. Know any other books that old currently in use?

The Koran was written roughly around 60 AD...and hasn't sold as many copies as the New Testament. (It reads like stereo instructions put through a paper shredder)

And Everyone watches Israel. Anything happens there and it's international news. Other countries that size and nobody cares anything about them. Slovakia or the Czech republic are bigger but no one really remembers when or how they split from being Czechloslovakia.

Getting the picture?

And if they really "don't matter" then why does everyone seem to care?

 

[GodsGrace]

OK. The New Testament is almost 2000 years old and the Old Testament is over 5500 years old. Know any other books that old currently in use?

The Koran was written roughly around 60 AD...and hasn't sold as many copies as the New Testament. (It reads like stereo instructions put through a paper shredder)

And Everyone watches Israel. Anything happens there and it's international news. Other countries that size and nobody cares anything about them. Slovakia or the Czech republic are bigger but no one really remembers when or how they split from being Czechloslovakia.

Getting the picture?

And if they really "don't matter" then why does everyone seem to care?

Oh. You're saying Israel IS important.
Of course. It's where God introduced Himself to Mankind.
And THE END is supposed to come from there, from where Jesus ascended.

Oh. And I think you made a typo. The O.T. is about 3,500 years old. (not 5,500).
With Job probably being the oldest book.

Thanks for explaining.

Wondering

 

[Deborah13]

But letters are written first, not orally passed down then written. I don't know why I should trust the scholars if they give their facts and there's no fact finding paths to back up what they count as the facts that they give.

We know that Paul wrote letters to the churches. We know that those letters were passed on to other churches. Would say the church in Rome pass a letter on without keeping a copy for themselves? I don't think so. Just because we don't have an original doesn't mean they were passed on orally and had to be written down years later from people's memory,

That said thank you very much for the references to the early church. I think I will eventually like to study what's known or what's gathered about the early church.

Here's an article from Britannica that gives some historical background about Ignatius of Antioch. It also interestingly addresses this subject of copying letters, in relationship to Ignatius' seven letters. Not saying that his letters were protected by God as the Bible has been.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Ignatius-of-Antioch

 

[JohnDB]

Oh. You're saying Israel IS important.
Of course. It's where God introduced Himself to Mankind.
And THE END is supposed to come from there, from where Jesus ascended.

Oh. And I think you made a typo. The O.T. is about 3,500 years old. (not 5,500).
With Job probably being the oldest book.

Thanks for explaining.

Wondering

The Old Testament is 3500 years older than the New Testament.

Ever seen a Levitical calendar?
The Jewish year is 5500 + years...the Tenakh was being written at that time.

I'm sure someone could quote the exact year...and probably will.

But how do they otherwise know which year is the Jubilee year?
Which years get the extra month and etc.

Now my memory could be wrong.... But probably not.

 

[OzSpen]

You're right Oz. I didn't explain myself properly.

Everything in the bible starting with Abraham is actual and real history.

What I meant was, and I hope NNS understood this, is that the bible was not written to be a history book.
It was written to demonstrate the relationship between God and Man.
It was written so that Man may know God and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ.
It was written so that we may know the truth and the truth may set us free. (from the bondage of sin).

I did tell him that our faith is based on the Apostles and what they passed down, including the resurrection. Maybe in an earlier post.

It just wasn't written to be a history book, although a lot of history is in there. I love the book of Ruth, for instance, and it shows a lot about the culture of the time.

Did you know that it was doubted that Jericho even existed? And that it wasn't ever certain that Peter lived in Capernaum? Until fairly recently when archeologists discovered remains and found a house in Capernaum with Peter's name on it - probably where early Christians gathered on the first day of the week.

And what I meant is: It doesn't matter WHEN a letter was written, it could have been 50 AD or 65 AD. What difference? We'll never know for sure. What matter is that it was WRITTEN!

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain better.

Wondering

Wondering,

I'd like to pick up a few points from your post!

1. You wrote: 'The bible was not written to be a history book'. You are correct in a primary sense that the Bible is written as a revelation from God. However, God's revelation contains lots of history. This includes the world-wide flood (that can be checked out through investigation of geological deposits). Archaeology examines what happened in history. In both OT and NT we have a drove of historical information that can be checked in some cases with secular history (e.g. Josephus and Tacitus).

2. It's your view that, 'It was written so that Man may know God and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ'. Agreed! However we cannot come to salvation through Christ if he didn't actually live in history, die on a wretched Roman cross, shedding his blood, and rising from the dead. History and revelation are intertwined.

3. You wrote: 'I did tell him that our faith is based on the Apostles and what they passed down, including the resurrection.' But the unbeliever needs to know that what the Apostles passed down, including the resurrection and the cross, are part of reliable history. How do we determine if it is trustworthy history? Craig Blomberg has written an excellent volume on the Gospels: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (1987, IVP) in which he discusses 'criteria of authenticity' (pp 246-254) for historical documents. These are some criteria that historians use.

4. I agree that archaeology has uncovered a lot of valuable information to affirm the historicity of various aspects of the Scripture. I think the issue of finding information about Peter at Capernaum could be a little speculative as Cephas was a fairly common name in the first century. However, I'd have to examine the archaeological evidence and I have not done that.

5. You say, ' It doesn't matter WHEN a letter was written, it could have been 50 AD or 65 AD. What difference? We'll never know for sure. What matter is that it was WRITTEN!' I consider that when the letter was written has significance for interpretation. The difficulty is that there are so many issues to investigate when determining the date. We tend to leave it to the specialists to do that research. There is an amazing piece of research by a rampant theological liberal, Dr J A T Robinson ( who wrote Honest to God that would be better titled Dishonest to God), has written a stunning piece of research on the NT, Redating the New Testament, SCM Press 1976. His conclusion is that 'all the statements of this book should be taken as questions. It certainly makes no claim to represent a conclusive redating of the New Testament' (p. 337). However, his questions relate to redating all of the NT books to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. His view is 'dates remain disturbingly fundamental data' (p. 338). John Wenham also has written on Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (IVP 1992). Wenham's research leads him to these dates for 3 Gospels:

• universal tradition of the early church gives Matthew a date around 40;
• Mark's Gospel probably written about 45;
• Luke knew Mark's gospel and Luke's gospel was well known in the mid-50s;
• The natural date for the Book of Acts is 62 (Wenham 1992:243).

These are some thoughts from a fellow traveller.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OK. The New Testament is almost 2000 years old and the Old Testament is over 5500 years old. Know any other books that old currently in use?

The Koran was written roughly around 60 AD...and hasn't sold as many copies as the New Testament. (It reads like stereo instructions put through a paper shredder)

And Everyone watches Israel. Anything happens there and it's international news. Other countries that size and nobody cares anything about them. Slovakia or the Czech republic are bigger but no one really remembers when or how they split from being Czechloslovakia.

Getting the picture?

And if they really "don't matter" then why does everyone seem to care?

John,

You are writing about the oldest book. I think you ought to differentiate between the oldest book and the oldest text.

By the way, the Quran could not have been written around AD 60 as you stated. That's because Islamic traditional beliefs tell us the Muhammad claims to have received his revelation in the month of Ramadan, AD 610 (although it was revealed to him in stages), when he was aged 40 (source).

Perhaps your 60 AD was a typo.

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

B

John,

You are writing about the oldest book. I think you ought to differentiate between the oldest book and the oldest text.

By the way, the Quran could not have been written around AD 60 as you stated. That's because Islamic traditional beliefs tell us the Muhammad claims to have received his revelation in the month of Ramadan, AD 610 (although it was revealed to him in stages), when he was aged 40 (source).

Perhaps your 60 AD was a typo.

Oz

No. I just made a mistake in memory. Some things stick weird. The 6 and the 0 stuck but the 1 between them got forgotten.

*whiney voice time*
But I was close....

And the Bible is used...no other old book of its age is quoted and referred to more than the Bible....that's what I meant. There are some older writings but they aren't used near as much as the scriptures.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Old Testament is 3500 years older than the New Testament.

Ever seen a Levitical calendar?
The Jewish year is 5500 + years...the Tenakh was being written at that time.

I'm sure someone could quote the exact year...and probably will.

But how do they otherwise know which year is the Jubilee year?
Which years get the extra month and etc.

Now my memory could be wrong.... But probably not.

I'm sorry JohnDB, I do think this is important.

Why are we discussing the Jewish Levitical calendar?
We live in the USA and use the Gregorian or Western Calendar.

Exodus, which is a historical book, is dated at between 1446 BC and 1290 BC approx.
Jesus was born 2,000 years ago so if you add 1,500 (approx) years to that, you get a total of 3,500 years.
The Old Testament began to be written approx. 3,500 years ago. OR 1,500 years before the birth of Christ.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

I'd like to pick up a few points from your post!

1. You wrote: 'The bible was not written to be a history book'. You are correct in a primary sense that the Bible is written as a revelation from God. However, God's revelation contains lots of history. This includes the world-wide flood (that can be checked out through investigation of geological deposits). Archaeology examines what happened in history. In both OT and NT we have a drove of historical information that can be checked in some cases with secular history (e.g. Josephus and Tacitus).

I AGREE! We're speaking to a non-Christian in the O.P.'s question. You start going into the history thing and you'll hear "oh yeah, so some guy got swallowed by a whale?" OR " some woman got turned into salt."
See? I know about the bible Oz. I'm speaking as to how to present it to a non-believer who has studied it in university as a literary book. I'd keep away from the history and stick to the spirituality.

2. It's your view that, 'It was written so that Man may know God and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus the Christ'. Agreed! However we cannot come to salvation through Christ if he didn't actually live in history, die on a wretched Roman cross, shedding his blood, and rising from the dead. History and revelation are intertwined.

Oh my gosh. WHEN did I ever deny the above? There's a total misunderstanding here. I say we go back to touring!!

3. You wrote: 'I did tell him that our faith is based on the Apostles and what they passed down, including the resurrection.' But the unbeliever needs to know that what the Apostles passed down, including the resurrection and the cross, are part of reliable history. How do we determine if it is trustworthy history? Craig Blomberg has written an excellent volume on the Gospels: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (1987, IVP) in which he discusses 'criteria of authenticity' (pp 246-254) for historical documents. These are some criteria that historians use.

Have you ever taken a basic theology course? The first things you learn are:
1. Christianity is a religion based on reason.
2. It could be believed by using intelliectual reasoning.
3. Faith is passed down by the Apostles. Our trust in these men, Apostles, can assure us that what they passed down to us is true.

Another good book: Who Moved The Stone by Frank Morison
It's about the resurrection and proof that it's true.
The book you post re the authenticity of the gospels is probably very good - but will a non-believer accept what it says? 1 Corinthians 2:14

4. I agree that archaeology has uncovered a lot of valuable information to affirm the historicity of various aspects of the Scripture. I think the issue of finding information about Peter at Capernaum could be a little speculative as Cephas was a fairly common name in the first century. However, I'd have to examine the archaeological evidence and I have not done that.

You could start here, I just got it for you:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...ouse-of-peter-the-home-of-jesus-in-capernaum/

There's much more - just ask Professor Google.

5. You say, ' It doesn't matter WHEN a letter was written, it could have been 50 AD or 65 AD. What difference? We'll never know for sure. What matter is that it was WRITTEN!' I consider that when the letter was written has significance for interpretation. The difficulty is that there are so many issues to investigate when determining the date. We tend to leave it to the specialists to do that research. There is an amazing piece of research by a rampant theological liberal, Dr J A T Robinson ( who wrote Honest to God that would be better titled Dishonest to God), has written a stunning piece of research on the NT, Redating the New Testament, SCM Press 1976. His conclusion is that 'all the statements of this book should be taken as questions. It certainly makes no claim to represent a conclusive redating of the New Testament' (p. 337). However, his questions relate to redating all of the NT books to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. His view is 'dates remain disturbingly fundamental data' (p. 338). John Wenham also has written on Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (IVP 1992). Wenham's research leads him to these dates for 3 Gospels:

• universal tradition of the early church gives Matthew a date around 40;
• Mark's Gospel probably written about 45;
• Luke knew Mark's gospel and Luke's gospel was well known in the mid-50s;
• The natural date for the Book of Acts is 62 (Wenham 1992:243).

The above is so complicated I'm just not willing to get into it. As I said, it all depends on which theologian you're reading. THEY DON'T AGREE! And WHY are dates disturbingly fundamental data? HIS research leads to the dating you post for the 3 gospels, but he doesn't get to lay down the law. Have you ever read a book that gives different dates? Why do you think that WHEN a letter was written has significance for interpretation? Or a gospel, for that matter? Are you willing to discuss whether or not an actual census was taken by Herod? Who was the governor at the time, did it actually happen that all had to return to their town of birth? Do you know about the debate regarding this?

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter unless you're studying to become a theologian. And, unless you are, it's best to stick to the simple and believe what is written and not worry too much about when it was written.
If it's very important to you, then I wish you the best in studying this. I gave it a good shot some years go and for me it just isn't important enough. And definitely not for witnessing since it brings up more problems than it solves.

Are we good?

Wondering

 

[Radagast]

Here's an article from Britannica that gives some historical background about Ignatius of Antioch.

He's quite important, and his letters are in the Penguin book of Early Christian Writings. Ignatius died in 110, and he had, and quoted (among other things) the gospels, 1 Peter, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans, Philippians, and 1 Corinthians.

 

[Radagast]

There is an amazing piece of research by a rampant theological liberal, Dr J A T Robinson ... has written a stunning piece of research on the NT, Redating the New Testament, SCM Press 1976. His conclusion is that 'all the statements of this book should be taken as questions. It certainly makes no claim to represent a conclusive redating of the New Testament' (p. 337).

But he also shows that very early dates for the gospels are possible, as I mentioned before.

John Wenham also has written on Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (IVP 1992). Wenham's research leads him to these dates for 3 Gospels:

• universal tradition of the early church gives Matthew a date around 40;

I'm not sure about that; there's a tradition that Matthew wrote something (in Aramaic), but it probably wasn't our (Greek) Matthew, which seems to quote Mark.

The natural date for the Book of Acts is 62 (Wenham 1992:243).

That's pretty much the date when the action stops -- which is the logical date for Acts. Also, the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus in 62 was probably after Acts was finished, or it would have been mentioned.