Yesterday, this post received the following reaction from Robert.  You might want to check out his blog to see where he is coming from.  Robert writes in response to the question, “how can a rational person trust the new testament:”

Frankly, a rational person cannot. You mention that we don’t have the original manuscripts. This represents only the tip of the iceberg. You could have also mentioned the additions and alterations to the text that have been made over the centuries. Or the verified epistle forgeries. Even worse, to accept the New Testament, you have to accept the Old as well, which makes the enterprise far more problematic.

If you desire to trust the New Testament on faith, as most New Testament scholars who remain Christian do, that is your prerogative, but don’t then turn around and claim the trust is rational.

Actually, there are some elements of Robert’s comment that I agree with.  There are many components of the New Testament in its manuscripts that must be accepted by a kind of blind faith. There are textual variants and differing accounts galore in each of the Gospels as well as the epistles (although after careful examination, many of the so-called “differing accounts” can be accounted for). However, Robert’s “all or nothing” tone in his claim reflects a lack of understanding of the scholarship concerning ancient historical documents.  It seems that Robert is suggesting that just because there are elements of controversy within the accounts of events in the New Testament, the New Testament as a whole is invalidated.

Consider, for example, the Greek historian Thucydides’ account of a great Funeral Speech given by Pericles after one of the first battles of the Peloponnesian War.  This account was probably written about 500 years before the New Testament books.  Basically, Thucydides records this powerful speech, and for centuries his record of this speech has inspired those who read it with the power and glory of Athenian society.  To my knowledge, this is the only record of Pericles delivery of this speech.

It is entirely unlikely that this Funeral Oration is presented to us word for word.  The speech has clearly been dressed up for Thucydides’ purposes, and his writing style is clearly evident in the presentation of the speech.  Historians basically agree, though, that the speech actually occured, and that Thucydides was present for its delivery.  They agree on this fact because of several factors: 1)Thucydides has a reputation as a historian, 2)the Funeral Oration would be a really unlikely event to simply invent, and 3)the incredible detail and explanation given of the context of the speech would be difficult to invent as well.

Keep in mind,  we only have one account of this speech, a clearly biased account, but historically we agree that the speech actually happened.  The point I am making is this:  in the realm of ancient historical documents, we often accept events as actuality based on one account.  Yet, when we approach the accounts given in the New Testament, we have at least five seperate accounts of the basic events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (the four Gospels and the Pauline account in I Corinthians).  It is important to remember that the writers of the Gospels did not believe that they were writing “the Bible” per se, instead they assumed that they were simply recording the events that they saw and heard of for a specific group of people they were writing to.  Although is likely that the Synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) collaborated on the events that they would record in their accounts, they viewed their epistles independently.  Therefore, I think it appropriate to examine each as an individual document instead of simply lumping each of these accounts into one source category “The New Testament.”  So, instead of simply having one account regarding the life of Jesus, we now have five, which is much more than we have for Pericles funeral oration.  Yet we accept the fact that Pericles gave his speech, but we have trouble historically accepting that the accounts of Jesus’ life presented in the New Testament as reliable.  Why do we have so much hesitation?

The simple reason is that the New Testament records some very unnatural events, while Thucydides, at least in his account of Pericles, does not.  However, with such a variety of accounts, and the close dating of these accounts to the occurence of the events recorded, historians have virtually agreed on three factual events that the Gospels record:  1)the discovery of an empty tomb three days after Jesus’ crucifixion, 2)the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and 3)the disciples belief in the resurrection.  I argue that the best explanation of these events is the miraculous resurrection of Jesus.

All the discrepencies in the New Testament aside, these accounts all agree on these three facts.  If these facts are best accounted for with the resurrection of Jesus, as a student of history I find it reasonable to assume that the simplest solution is best.  It is most reasonable to assume that in fact Jesus did rise from the dead.  This is not just a faith-based decision for me-instead I find it the most plausable explanation for the events recorded in the Gospels.

What do you think?  Is my argument based on a blind leap of faith, or does it bear some basis in reality?  Am I really irrational for believing in the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event?

Subscribe to Milestoneworship

Recently

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.