Would you trust a 100-year-old account of anything?

Question

According to most Biblical scholars today, "Mark was written in the 60's or slightly after the year 70, with Luke and Matthew following 10-20 years later. Other solutions, such as the Augustinian hypothesis and Griesbach hypothesis, would give Matthew priority and a possible date of 40. John is most often dated to 90-100, though a date as early as the 60s, and as late as the second century have been argued by a few."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The historical references to the U.S. Constitution date it at 1789. It's not quite the same thing as someone in 1889 saying "take my word for it, Thomas Jefferson said THIS."

I think you are obsolete, dude. or else just a little mentally rattled. What does that have to do with it??!

Answer 1

Yes....

We trust that the US Constitution is real, correct?
We believe in what was written about George Washington, correct?

Why not NT scripture....which was written a mere 30 or 40 years after Christ?

And besides....all scripture is God-breathed.....He wrote it...not us.

Answer 2

Yes, both the Bible and the Constitution of the U.S., because both have met the test of time.

Jesus' birth had to be about 6 BC, since Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Most scholars believe in the 6 BC or earlier date.
The reason for this uncertainty is because we do not know the time span between the order to kill all Jewish males 2 and under, and the actual death of Herod the Great in 4 BC.

Assuming that it is 6 BC, his death would have to be in 27 AD.

If it is true that the most accurate description of an event is the one nearest in time frame, then the daily newspaper or CNN or FOX NEWS should be the most accurate accounting.

The more recent information is usually couched in spin, but the account of it ten years later has settled down to be the most reliable information.

Think of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There was speculation all over the place for at least a year or two, but now 43 years later, it has settled, and no longer needs all the spin that was placed on the event when it had just happened. We do not deny that JFK was assassinated, and that all that can be proved is a lone gunman.

Look at all the media dribble and lawsuits over Anna Nicole Smith, but a few years down the line, we will have a single cohesive story that will be closer to the truth than anything you hear today.

grace2u

Answer 3

No, I wouldn't. The most accurate account of anything is directly after the incident. As time pasts there is too much interpretation of what happened. If you line up a row of people and tell them something and then to whisper it to the next person, by the time you got to the end of the line it is a totally different story. It amazes me how many people take the bible at face value, even though they never would do that with anything else...I guess that is why they start indoctrination at the beginning of birth, a way to control the masses. Good question!

Answer 4

You have to apply slightly different criteria when we're talking about things that happened in antiquity. There is a science called textual criticism, applied to all ancient literature, that gives us a high confidence in the New Testament. In those days, the existence of thousands of manuscripts only a couple hundred years after the fact speaks volumes.

Besides, I wish people would apply the same standards they apply to Jesus to other ancient people. Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed? What about Alexander the Great or Socrates? There is far worse documentation for them than for Jesus. In fact, if you applied the same criteria, you'd have to say we don't know anything that happened until about 1600.

This assumes you're willing to listen to reason, of course, and not just be a juvenile "rebel" who takes the Blasphemy Challenge like all the other mindless droids. I hope you fall into the former category rather than the latter.

Edit: It's funny you should mention Thomas Jefferson. Here we are, over 2 centuries later, and many people think they, only now, finally understand what he wrote when he told there should be a "wall of separation between church and state," not in any official document, but in a private letter to a church. His intent from the context was clearly that the state should not interfere with the church and not vice-versa - but that's not my point.

My point is that many of these same people who say an ancient document written only 30 or so years after the event cannot be historical, but who claim that they know for sure what Jefferson meant, and what's more read that meaning back into the first amendment. Talk about hypocrisy!

Also, the analogy of the telephone game is so often repeated but so little thought about by people, it's amazing. In the telephone game, there is nobody there to check what you're saying: that's why it's fun. But that was not true - there were many years of overlap in peoples' lives. John the apostle, who was there for everything that happened, lived throughout the entire time of the writing of Canon; and I doubt he's the only one. If the stories changes, there would have been many people to contradict it. Please, contact me personally if you want to discuss this subject more. It's way too important to mindlessly throw out questions like "what about the telephone game?" that only serve to reinforce the prejudices and presuppositions you already have.

Answer 5

Yes. I trust accounts of WW1 and WW2 veterans. I trust the work of Einstein in the 30's. There are many examples. In 50 more years, should we ignore the words of Martin Luther King, Jr?? Should we ignore the advice and teachings of Ghandi?

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's irrelevant or outdated. If we ignore histoy, our civilization will be screwed. Wisdom is timeless. The more Truth in the teaching, the longer it will stand.

Answer 6

Do you trust the account of Plato or Socrates? Why?
We have many ancient cataloged manuscripts of the new test. and many are in different languages. All the same.
One is part of the gospel of John, same as today. What does it matter if the scholars are off 1-50 years? Does it make it any less true?
†

Answer 7

Considering that Christ was crucified in 37 ot thereabouts and the Gospels were written by the witnesses. I trust them. I don't doubt WWII veterans accounts that we won the war, do you? You should check your vulcan arithmetic and logic.

Answer 8

Would you trust a 100-year-old account of anything?

Answer:

Do you trust the wheel?