I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (38 page)

This distinction between the neutrality and the objectivity of the New Testament writers is an extremely important point. Too often the documents that make up the New Testament are automatically considered biased and untrustworthy. This is ironic, because those who hold this view are often biased themselves. They are biased because they have not first investigated the New Testament documents or the context in which they were written in order to make an educated assessment of their trustworthiness.

As we’re about to see, the New Testament documents are not “church propaganda” or a monolith of writings designed to promote some church-manufactured theology. What are they, then? That’s the question we’ll address in the remainder of this chapter and the next three.

So let’s get started. We know we have an accurate copy of what was written down by the New Testament writers. But are those documents trustworthy? Our first question deals with historical test #1: Are the New Testament documents early?

A
RE THE
N
EW
T
ESTAMENT
D
OCUMENTS
E
ARLY
?

Yes. How early?

All New Testament Books Were Written Before
A
.
D
.
100
(About 70
Years After the Death of Jesus)—
As table 9.1 (on page 236) shows, in letters written between A.D. 95 and 110, three early church fathers—Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp—quoted passages out of 25 of the 27 books in the New Testament.
¹⁹
Only the short books of Jude and 2 John were not referenced, but they certainly had been written. (Jude had written his short letter by this time because, being Jesus’ half brother, he was almost certainly dead by A.D. 100; and 2 John had been written because it came before 3 John, which was one of the 25 books quoted.)

Since Clement was in Rome and Ignatius and Polycarp were hundreds of miles away in Smyrna, the original New Testament documents had to have been written significantly earlier, otherwise they could not have circulated across the ancient world by that time. Therefore, it’s safe to say that all of the New Testament was written by A.D. 100, and at least those in the left column several years before 95.

But that’s just the
latest
they could have been written. Most were probably written much earlier. How much earlier? Most if not all before 70.

Most If Not All of These Books Were Written Before
A
.
D
. 70
(About 40 Years After the Death of Jesus)—
Imagine this. You’re a devout Jew in the first century. The center of your national, economic, and religious life is Jerusalem, and especially the temple. It has been that way in your nation, your family, and almost every Jew’s family for a thousand years—ever since Solomon built the first temple. Most of the newest temple, constructed by King Herod, was completed when you were a child, but portions of it are still under construction and have been since 19 B.C. For your entire life you have attended services and brought sacrifices there to atone for the sins you’ve committed against God. Why? Because you and your countrymen consider this temple the earthly dwelling place of the God of the universe, the maker of heaven and earth, the very Deity whose name is so holy you dare not utter it.

As a young man, you begin following a Jew named Jesus who claims to be the long-awaited Messiah predicted in your Scriptures. He performs miracles, teaches profound truths, and scolds and befuddles the priests in charge of the temple. Incredibly, he predicts his own death and resurrection. He also predicts that the temple itself will be destroyed before your generation passes away (Mark 13:2, 30).

This is scandalous! Jesus is convicted of blasphemy by your temple priests and is crucified on the eve of the Passover, one of your holiest holidays. He’s buried in a Jewish tomb, but three days later you and his other followers see Jesus alive just as he predicted. You touch him, eat with him, and he continues to perform miracles, the last being his ascension into heaven. Forty years later, your temple is destroyed just as Jesus had predicted, along with the entire city and thousands of your countrymen.

Question: If you and your fellow-followers write accounts of Jesus
after
the temple and city were destroyed in A.D. 70, aren’t you going to at least mention that unprecedented national, human, economic, and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially since this risen Jesus had predicted it? Of course! Well, here’s the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70—there’s absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents. This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70.

Some may object, “That’s an argument from silence, and that doesn’t prove anything.” But in fact it is not an argument from silence, for the New Testament documents speak of Jerusalem and the temple, or activities associated with them, as if they were still intact at the time of the writings.
²⁰
But even if this were an argument from silence, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Consider these modern parallels. If a former sailor aboard the
USS Arizona
wrote a book related to the history of that ship, and the book ends with no mention of the ship being sunk and 1,177 of its sailors being killed at Pearl Harbor, do you have
any
doubt that the book must have been written prior to December 7, 1941? Or, if a former tenant of the World Trade Center wrote a book related to the history of those buildings, and the book ends with the towers still standing—there’s absolutely no mention of the towers being destroyed and nearly 3,000 people being murdered by Muslim terrorists—do you have
any
doubt that the book must have been written prior to September 11, 2001? Of course not.

Well, the disaster in A.D. 70, in terms of lives, property, and national scope, was many magnitudes greater than Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It marked the end of such a terrible war that Josephus—who himself surrendered to the Romans in 67—called it the “greatest” war of all time.
²¹
The Jews didn’t lose just one ship or a couple of prominent buildings—they lost their entire country, their capital city, and their temple, which had been the center of their religious, political, and economic life for the last thousand years. In addition,
tens of thousands
of their countrymen were dead and hundreds of their villages burned to the ground.

So if we would expect tragedies such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 to be mentioned in the relevant writings of today, we certainly should expect the events of A.D. 70 to be cited somewhere in the New Testament (especially since the events were predicted by Jesus). But since the New Testament does not mention these events anywhere and suggests that Jerusalem and the temple are still intact, we can conclude reasonably that most, if not all, of the New Testament documents must have been written prior to 70.

How much earlier?

Many New Testament Books Were Composed Before
A
.
D
. 62
(About 30 Years After the Death of Jesus)—
Imagine this: You are a first-century medical doctor who has embarked on a research project to record the events of the early church. This research will require you to interview eyewitnesses of the early church and to travel with the apostle Paul as he visits new churches across the ancient world. You record prominent events in the life of the church such as the early work of John and Peter, as well as the martyrdoms of Stephen and James (the brother of John). In Paul’s life you record everything from sermons, beatings, and trials to shipwrecks and imprisonments. You also record his theological summit with Peter and James, who is Jesus’ brother and the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

As you describe many of these events, your narrative is so filled with details that every informed reader will know that either you must have access to eyewitness testimony or you are an eyewitness yourself. For example, as you follow Paul on his travels you shift from using the pronoun “they” to “we,” and you correctly record the names of local politicians, local slang, local weather patterns, local topography, local business practices; you even record the right depth of the water about a quarter mile off Malta as your ship is about to run aground in a storm! In fact, you record at least 84 such details in the last half of your narrative.

Question: Since you obviously find it important to record all of these minor details, if your main subject—the apostle Paul—was executed at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero, do you think you would record it? Or, if Jesus’ brother, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was killed at the hands of the Sanhedrin, the same Jewish body that sentenced Jesus to die, do you think you would record it? Of course! And if you failed to record such momentous events, we would rightly assume that you wrote your narrative
before
their deaths.

This is the situation we find in the New Testament. Luke, the medical doctor, meticulously records all kinds of details in Acts, which chronicles the early church (a listing of 84 historically confirmed details is in the next chapter). Luke records the deaths of two Christian martyrs (Stephen, and James the brother of John), but his account ends with two of its primary leaders (Paul, and James the brother of Jesus) still living. Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome, and there’s no mention of James having died. We know from Clement of Rome, writing in the late first century, and from other early church fathers, that Paul was executed sometime during the reign of Nero, which ended in A.D. 68.
²²
And we know from Josephus that James was killed in 62. So we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the book of Acts was written before 62.

If you’re still not convinced, consider this modern parallel: suppose someone wrote a book recording the events surrounding the main figures of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The book begins with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and includes the Civil Rights legislation of 1964, the marches and protests of Martin Luther King, Jr., including his arrest and imprisonment, and his great “I have a dream” speech on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Question: If the book ends with Martin Luther King, Jr.—the very leader of the movement—still alive, when would you conclude that the book was written? Obviously before his assassination in April of 1968. This is the same situation we have with Luke’s narrative. His book ends with the main leaders still alive, which means it was written no later than 62. (Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer gives thirteen additional reasons why Acts was written by 62.
²³
)

If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach . . .” The “former book” must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4, see citation below).

How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the
latest
Acts was written, and there had to have been some time between Luke’s first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before.

This date also makes sense in light of Paul’s quotation of Luke’s Gospel. Writing sometime between A.D. 62–65, Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 and calls it “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Therefore, Luke’s Gospel must have been in circulation long enough before that time in order for both Paul and Timothy to know its contents and regard it as Scripture. (By the way, this was no minor claim for Paul to make. In effect, he was making the bold assertion that Luke’s Gospel was just as inspired as the Holy Jewish Bible—the Old Testament he treasured so much!)

If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50s if not earlier. Why? Because Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4).

Most scholars believe Mark’s Gospel was one of those eyewitness sources. And if those Dead Sea Scroll fragments we mentioned above are really from A.D. 50–70, then certainly Mark is earlier. But even if Mark is not before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eyewitness testimony written within 25 or 30 years of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. How much earlier?