Hi JF,
We do not have to accept the Gospels on "blind faith." The New Testament should be examined as you would examine any ancient historical document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research ancient historical eyewitness accounts. When the New Testament is treated with this historical-critical method, it proves themselves to be authentic and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ, enought, in fact, to know that God was present in Him and working through Him in a most significant way.
What are the criteria which historians apply to ancient documents in order to ascertain their historical value? Most of the criteria are common sense applied to ancient historical records. These criteria can roughly be divided into two groups: internal and external criteria.
Internal criteria applies to information found within the document itself.
External criteria applies to information found outside the document itself.
Internal Criteria:
A. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does he claim to write an eyewitness account, or is he basing his account on an eyewitness source? Or, is it based on hearsay?
(In historical research, eyewitness accounts or accounts written from eyewitness acccounts are weighed more heavily than hearsay or opinion accounts.)
b. Does the document in question contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material?
(Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the stroy, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized.)
c. Does the document contain self-dmaging material?
(If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.)
d. Is the document reasonably self-consistent?
(There is a coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical acount usually include some minor discrepancies. This is also consistent with eyewitness testimonies in our judicial system.)
e. Is there evidence of legendary accretion in the document?
(Fish stories tend to be exaggerated over time. The presence of "larger than life" features in a document suggest a later time of writing, and proportionally diminish the document's historical trustworthiness.)
EXTERNAL CRITERIA:
A. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
(If a motive can be established for the author fabricatin an account, the trutworthiness of the document is lessened. On the other hand, if the author had nothing to gain, or even something to lose, by writing or reporting the account, the docuemt's trustworthiness is increased.)
b. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and which substantiate the authenticity of the document?
(If a document's account can be, to any extent, confirmed by sources outside the document itself, this enhances the document's credibility.)
c. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
(If archeological findings can substantiate any material found in a document, the document's trustworthiness is increased. Conversely.)
d. Could contgemporaries of the document falsify the document's account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
(If there existed persons who could have exposed the document's account as a fabrication, and had a motive for doing so, but nevertheless did not ---so far as histgory tells--this increases the trustworthiness of the document.
I will try to examine the internal and external evidence that substantiates the New Testaments authenticity as an historical document. Most of the irrational criticism comes from the external, so I might begin by examing the external evidence first.
Emile |
