Should everyone assume that the gospel accounts of the New Testament are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or, should everyone assume that said gospel accounts are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? In other words are the gospel accounts innocent until proven guilty or are they guilty until proven innocent? Today I have been dealing with a couple of sceptics who assume that the gospel accounts are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that said accounts are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct and reliable concerning some particular fact. But their approach was not unexpected. This is the case because it is always the approach sceptical critics, “scholars” or otherwise, take regarding the New Testament gospel accounts. However, if these same skeptics were to be charged with a crime they would want to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, they would be outraged if they were not permitted to personal testify about themselves in their own defense. Why is it the case with these men regarding their own state of affairs, but they will not assume the same regarding the gospel accounts of the New Testament? But Dr. William Lane Craig gave the following reasons as to why we should assume the gospel accounts are reliable until proven otherwise. He writes: But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong: 1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased. 2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary urban legends. Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the vanishing hitchhiker rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives. 3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus. 4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus. 5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. (reasonablefaith.org) There is not enough space in this post to go into detail regarding the quoted five points. But we would like to see someone challenge them and attempt to refute them as reasons to assume the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as the rest of the New Testament until they are proven unreliable. Of course, if one does not want to believe anything anyway, no amount of proof will persuade one to change ones position.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 23:31:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015