Is the recording of the New Testament generally recognised as historical fact?

Question

I recently read the famous book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Christ," and the case presented is generally conclusive that the Gospels and New Testament represent historical fact. However, in the book, the scholars he interviews each have a personal faith in Jesus, he doesn't interview any critics of the historical case for Jesus only presents criticisms himself, and some of the evidence provided in the book is theoretical rather than based on solid fact. I was just wondering generally whether the historical case for Jesus was generally recognised as a strong case, or whether there is wide criticsm and skepticism from theologians, scholars, and so forth, especially since the book was published (1998) directly or indirectly with it. Thanks.

Please note: most of you are raising criticisms which "The Case for Christ" deals with, rather than raising fresh criticims of the conclusion it reaches, apart from dismissing it as bias. And for the statement that most of the world is not Christian is affirming the Bible a little more (eg: the way is narrow which few people will enter) or words to that effect

Answer 1

Actually, the record is outdated. You can pick up an MP3 now.

Most MP3 bibles can fit quite comfortably on a single DVD, or 2 CDs.

Answer 2

Please read some other books , because whatever the Gospels represent it definitely is not historical fact. Can you think of any contemporary account of the stories related in the Gospels. Is there a single historian before or during the supposed ministry of Jesus that mentions him. No. Despite the fact that he apparently caused such a stir amongst thousands. Not a word appears about Jesus until at least 70 years after his (supposed) crucifixion. Even these accounts do not tell the same story. See - The Lost Gospel by Burton L Mack for example for an attempt to find the real words of Jesus in the New Testament (known as Q studies - a fascinating way of studying the scriptures)

There is infact not a single shred of first hand evidence for his existence at all. Couple this with the fact that the story of his life contains so many elements from Greek and Middle Eastern Mythology and it is a wonder that Christianity has got away with its mix of Myth and Wisdom story for the past two thousand odd years. I will leave you with the following observation: he was born in a stable to a virgin mother on Dec 25, he was visited by three wise men, he performed miracles - amongst them turning water into wine. He was crucified upon and tree and was resurrected - who? Why Dionysus ofcourse. See also Heracles and a number of other Mythical figures for more 'coincidences'.

Just a note about the previous answer. Most serious scholars agree that it is impossible to know who wrote the four canonical Gospels but it almost certainly was not Matthew Mark Luke or John. Also theuy were all obviously written for different communities in different places with very different beliefs. John is the most clearly Gnostic text for example and contains many phrases and sayings that differ markedly from the other three.

Christians have given all sorts of responses to these facts, citing people like Flavius Josephus (the Roman Jewish Historian of the Roman Jewish war) for example, but Josephus mentions people who follow a certain Christos only once - and again many years after the events of the Gospel supposedly took place, and even then we cannot be sure he means Jesus.

Answer 3

Well it's not recognized as historial fact in any school text book, there are some scientic evidence that some of the major genological effects have happened though and these could have been working into the bible in some way or another. Such as the Flood, I have also read an article how right now the Red Sea is dropping slightly because of the continental shift of Africa

I wouldn't however suggest that everything written is fact. The bible wasn't written until many years, over 100 years in fact, past the time when many of the events portrayed where supposed to happem.

In school, did you ever play a game called telephone? The students sit in a circle, the 1st kid whispers something to the next, they whisper it to the next and so on. Was the message ever the same after being passed through 30 students in just a few minutes?

Answer 4

1) All the new testament writings were complete by the very beginning of the 1st century. Most had been completed long before that.

2) We know with a very good degree of certainty who wrote what, and when they wrote it.

3) All the nonsense people claim about the Roman emperor (it was Constantine, not Nero) being involved in the selection and decision is wishful thinking. There's no evidence to support that position. Never has been.

The Christian (Catholic by then) community knew full well which writings were authentic and true, because Christians knew their faith back then. They had to, as there was no new testament, and few useable copies of the old testament available in the world, at that time.

4) All that remained was for the church to call a council or two, and officially decide which books were inspired, which books were truly of apostolic origin, which books were true, and which books were constantly in use by the church since the early days.

The best works, those most consistent with the constant beliefs and practices of the faith since the earliest days of the church, made it into the canon of scripture.

Flawed works, heretical gospels, and obscure, little known, or incomplete texts were properly excluded.

Up until fairly recent times, no one seriously questioned the authenticity or the inspiration of the canon (list) of sacred scripture.

In the mid 1800's a new breed of bible scholar emerged, along with a study system we now call the "Historical Critical Method".

The idea was to gain a better appreciation of scripture and its' true meaning, by learning more about the times, the places, the languages, and the customs of he people who were alive at the time the various works were written.

This actually worked for a short while.

Then, during the last half of the 20th century, radical professors, heretics, ex-hippies, bomb throwers, intellectuals, and atheists took up the cause.

Determined to treat holy scripture just like a cheap romance novel, these "scholars" soon developed their own opinions on virtually every portion of scripture.

They basically trashed it. If you believe what these guys teach, the Bible could mean anything or nothing. To them, it's just another book.

They had no new evidence, no new revelations. Just opinions. They simply lacked the faith (and the good sense) to recognize the qualities that were always inherent in God's holy Word.

Worse yet, this "system" of Bible study has been officially or unofficially adopted as the "de facto" standard by a great many (most) of the universities, seminaries, and bible colleges around the world.

This is how you get books like "The DaVinci Code" where an author makes things up to suit his totally fictional story line, all the while claiming he based it on "serious" biblical research that had been done by some of the world's foremost biblical "authorities".

Yeah. Sure ...

Cutting through all the modernist nonsense and getting back to basics:

There is strong historical support for Jesus, for the apostles, for the persecutions and trials of the early church, for the conversion of Rome, and for many of the subsequent and related events.

There is also strong historical and documentary support (in all the periods before about 1955) for the widely accepted, traditional importance and the literal accuracy of all or most of the scriptural accounts.

Late archeological finds also tend to bolster the traditional view of scripture, as does the church, itself.

In summary, my conclusions are very closely aligned with those of Lee Strobel and his experts, who also enjoy the support of both history and church tradition.

The bible is truly the inspired and inerrant written Word of God. Except for a few minor translation problems, the Bibles we read today accurately pass along substantially what God himself originally directed the sacred writers to put down, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Any time you find someone telling you that the Gospels weren't really written by the named writers, or they were rewritten, were written late, were compiled from a posited, but nonexistent book of "sayings", or were the work of unknown sources (often referred to by the letter "Q"), beware. You're encountering the dubious and unfounded work of these numerous "historical - critical" and very likely heretical "scholars".

Answer 5

It is funny that all of the people he interviewed for that book have a personal faith in Jesus. You see, I too have read this book (unfortunately). The problem is, in any scholarly writing, there is no room for bias. This book is infested with bias. As a historian you analyze stories from both sides and give an unbiased historical conclusion or hypothesis. Historians study the "facts" of history, and there quite simply are not "facts" that Jesus was the savior of anyone. Why would this man not interview someone who is critical of the situation? Because he has his own agenda to push maybe. You may want to look up HIS credentials in regards to the historical accuracy of this book. I can bet you he is not a historian, or for that matter educated beyond a BA in any real world applicable study.

While it is true that Jesus the man existed, it is unlikely he was any kind of savior. Funny that christianity came out of Judaism. The Jews do not believe Jesus was the savior because their savior was suppose to be a warrior and not a pacifist. Was it not to long ago that David Koresh came along claiming to be the same thing?

Answer 6

The New testament records fall into three groups. The first group was meant to tell other people about Jesus and the records are factual as far as any single person can make them from memory. This first group would be the Gospels, and Acts. The second group consists of some of Paul's writings, James, Hebrews, and possible Revelation. These writings were intended to offer practical instruction in the faith. The third group are personal letters that were preserved because they contained information that shed light on the essentials of the faith. This would be Timothy I&II and Philemon for example.

There were some gospels that were rejected by the church because they either were clearly forgeries or contained doctrines that were in comflict with essential Christian teaching. Examples include The Gospel of Thomas (gnostic/arayan heresy) and The Gospel of Judas ( A third century forgery)

Answer 7

When considered objectivly from a historical point of view the new testiment is not a perfect 100% accurate text. It was written by many diffrent authors and translated by many diffrent people over the generations. There are historical inaccuracies in it. For example the census described in the new testament could not have taken place as it had not been invented by the romans at that point. Judas is also discribed as killing himself in diffrent ways. Although many of the people described were definatly real, such as Jesus and Pilot, there is no independant evidence that the events described (miricals)are true. The document is not without its faults but does contain much that was a true representation of life at the time. However it is not watertight and has inacuricies and mistranslations within it. Without faith it does not make for sush a convincing document. This is also true of recent archaeological excavations where cities described in the bible were found to be much smaller and more insignificant than the bible would suggest. Again its a matter of faith over fact.

Answer 8

Yes, the case for Jesus is actually a strong case. It may be true that the people who were interviewed were for Christ, but all of the reasons they gave were reasons that were purely historical in nature, and those reasons won't change even if an atheist said them. Everytime the interviewer, who didn't believe in Christ, asked a question (and he asked some tough ones!), every person had an answer, even an answer to satisfy the atheist enough so that eventually he, too, converted to a Christian. There is a lot of historical evidence for Christ, and archaeologists find things that cause critics of the Bible to have to change their viewpoints.

Answer 9

No. The new testament has been edited and rewritten since its inception. Jesus may or may not have been a real person, but any facts will always be outshone by the embelishments of the greedy churches. THEY made christianity the way it is because they wanted to keep a good tight grip on the population. It enveloped any other belief system it encountered, taking most of its "historical" facts directly from them and making them there own. Easter? spring festival. Christmas? winter version. Heres something to have a laugh with. Replace the word "jesus" with any other fictional character, james bond or king arthur, for instance and read the new testament. Its the most unbelivable load of self serving rubbish. Dont belive .

Answer 10

I think it is a very widely accepted fact that Jesus lived; about the time he is said to have lived. As to the New Testament being generally recognized as historical fact; that depends on the book. Take the Gospels for example: From a truly "historical" point of view, there are serious questions about the authenticity of the version of Matthew the Church accepted. As for Mark, it was so seriously flawed that at the time it was written (when there were still those alive who knew the truth) believers took it to the Apostle John for his comments. His "defense" was "Don't blame Mark for the inaccuracies. He was only repeating what Peter told him, and we all know Peter changed his story depending on who he was talking to. So, if there is any blame, blame Peter." (very odd apologetics, don't you think?). Clement of Alexandria admitted that the original Gospel was kept under lock and key at Alexandria and only a few of the most trusted church leaders were permitted to view it. Only the "edited" version was allowed to be distributed. (He also advised to lie about this, and say no "original" existed.) Luke was written entirely by accessing other records. We don't even know who Luke really was, and it is not in any way considered an eyewitness account. Only John (the single, non-synoptic Gospel) is considered generally accurate historically, since it was distributed while John was still alive. Even then, you must assume John's motives in writing the text...

Answer 11

The Old Testament was not written until 400 years after the supposed death and Resurrection of Christ. The Roman Emperor Nero was the one who called and hosted the conclave where it was decided what books would go into the Old Testament and those that would not be in the Old testament (now called the Apocrypha). At that time, it is estimated that less than 1% of the people in the Roman Empire's territories could read or write. Since any original documentation is locked in the secret archives of the Vatican, it is unlikely we will ever know the answers to any of these questions. To me it is highly dubious that anything in the Old Testament is authentic, considering a Roman Emperor was involved in the decision making.