Bible Study Central

However, the skeptics have a point.  After awhile, especially in the ancient world, legends could arise about religious or political leaders.  Might not this is a case of one such legend? 

Well, let's look at this possibility logically.  While, the skeptic can accept the purely human Jesus hypothesis on blind faith, the Christian does not have that luxury.  We are called to be investigators of the truth, to "prove all things"  (I Thess. 5.21) and "be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us." So, let's look at the evidence.  First, the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus are either eyewitness accounts or writings based on eyewitness accounts.  In other words they were written while people were still alive who knew the facts in the case.   This means that when the Gospel of Mark was read in Jerusalem, someone could have said, "Hold on, Mark, that didn't happen, and you know it. Remember, what really happened was..."

This is a significant point, the gospels were originally circulated in areas where there were plenty of people still alive who knew what had happened.  Only a fool writes lies to people who know the truth, and we have no evidence the evangelists were fools.

It takes a long time for the truth to change into legend.  Some say 2-3 generations or well over 100 years.   All of the gospels date to within a time frame of 50 A.D. and 90 A.D.  In other words from 20 - 60 years after the crucifixion of Christ.  No reputable folklorist would suggest that the story of a simple teacher could change into that of a dying God who arises out of the grave and ascends to heaven in such a short period of time.

"Okay," you say, "That makes sense if, and this is a big IF,  the gospels were written during the time frame you set forth.  Some say they were not written until up to 200 years later.  At the very least, since we don't have the original documents, they could have been edited much later.  They could have been generally accurate at the time, but that stuff about the resurrection could have been added later to make this a better story with a happy ending.  Something to 'rally the troops' during a time of persecution."

First, it is interesting that the assertion of a date as late as 200 A.D. is still circulating after the discovery of the John Ryland Manuscript.  This portion of the Gospel of John dates to 130 A.D.  70 years earlier than that school of criticism placing the Gospel accounts being written during the late second century or early third.   Likewise t he Bodmer Papyrus dates to the middle of the second century and contains most of the Gospel of John. 

The Chester Beatty Papyri dates to just 200 A.D. and contains large portions of the New Testament.  Unless, the critics suggest that this is the original or one of the original pieces of "fiction" we now call the Gospels, then obviously if a copy exists at this time, the  originals had been around for much longer.

Sir Fredric Kenyon writing in The Bible and Modern Scholarship said this about the Chester Beatty Manuscript,

Even Karen Armstrong, a skeptic, writes in her book A History of God:

Even she is willing to put the first Gospel in A.D. 70. And as we already discussed her to claim that less than 40 years is enough time for a complex, detailed mythology to develop is illogical and not consistent with sound scholarship.

Indeed, most scholars, both believers and nonbelievers are willing to accept that the Gospels were written sometime in the 70’s and 80’s with the Gospel of John possibly being written as late as the early 90’s. This means that they were written within 40-60 years of the actual events. This makes the Gospels to be among the most verifiably contemporary documents of ancient times. Thus, with even the earliest manuscripts dating to within less than 100 years of their authorship is remarkable.
Indeed, if the same standards the critics apply to the Bible were applied to other  books of ancient times, we would have to reject as unreliable virtually all ancient literature.  Just a sampling shows that the time gaps between works considered authoritative are much greater than those with the Gospels.  Here are a few examples.

Compare this to a 40 year gap for portions of the Gospel of John and less than 200 year gap for near complete copies of the New Testament.

However, even if we had no early manuscripts, there are other indications of early authorship.  Consider the quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the early church fathers.  The likes of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr writing in the late first and early second centuries of the current era quote frequently from the New Testament writings often referring to them as scriptures.  Even at this early stage of the growth of the church, some of the writings of the Apostles were considered on par with Old Testament writings. One scholar decided to try and reconstruct the entire New Testament from the writings of first and second century church fathers and succeeded.  You cannot quote what does not exist.  These quotations alone should be enough to push the dates of the Gospels back to their traditional dates.

But even if we did not have the Gospels, we still have the epistles.  There is little doubt, even among skeptics, that the writings of Paul in particular can be ascribed to the period between about 50 A.D. and his death in 67 A.D.   Thus, Paul is writing less than 20 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.  There is little dispute about the dates of his epistles.  In fact, just this week, I heard some skeptics on a TV news magazine  discussing how Paul's writings were intended for his time only.  While I cannot agree to that, it does point out that their belief is that the epistles were written in the middle of the first century.
Paul frequently speaks of the resurrection of Jesus.  It's almost the core of his doctrine.  At one point speaking to the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead he says:

The obvious question is where and when did Paul "receive" this doctrine of the resurrection?  In all probability, he received it during the time he spent learning from Ananias and other Christians after  his experience on the Road to Damascus.  Because of the circumstances of the persecution of the Christians we can date this fairly precisely to about 2 - 3 years after the resurrection.  So, the first reports of the resurrection were not recorded by an overzealous believer in the Third Century.  If so, how could Paul in the First Century have known about it.  And if Paul had concocted the story of the resurrection on his own, then why did he in essence, challenge people to check out his story.

There is yet another route by which we can date at least one of the Gospels to an early date.  It is less certain than what has been presented for the Epistles, but is still suggestive.
Luke writes the book of Acts as a sequel to his Gospel.  He states this clearly in the introduction to the book:

The interesting thing about the book of Acts is that by the ninth chapter, it becomes mostly a biography of the journeys of Paul.  What makes this interesting is that at the end of the book, Paul is under house arrest in Rome.  In other words, Luke had to have concluded writing the book before Paul's death.  Otherwise, why would he have not written of Paul's death. And to argue, he would not have known of it is questionable, because the last chapter of acts is written in the first person.  Luke accompanied Paul on the journey to Rome.

Thus, if Acts was written before 67 A.D. when Paul died, and if this is the second book written by Luke, the first being the Gospel bearing his name, then the Gospel must have been written earlier.  If only a year earlier, that places a firm date of it being written prior to 66 A.D. or a mere 30 years or so after the events of Easter week.  Again, hardly enough time for a complex mythology turning a provincial, local teacher into a divine avatar of the living God, who dies for the sin of the world, then is resurrected and ascends to heaven. 

So, anyway we look at it, something must have happened in or about A.D. 33 which could have been interpreted by large numbers of people as being a resurrection.  But is it possible that they simply didn't understand what happened?  Could it be that there could be an alternate explanation of the events recorded in the gospels? 

These are good questions and we will address them in the next lesson.