Evidence That Demands A Verdict

A catalog of my thoughts about Josh & Sean McDowell's book.

Chapter 3: Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?

No Originals

Because the original autographs of the New Testament books have not been found, most of this chapter will examine the historicity of the early manuscript (handwritten) copies that were made from them, concentrating upon the bibliographic test.

p. 42, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

This is very important. If we do not have the originals, we cannot know what the originals said.

Dating The Four Gospels and Acts

Matthew

Irenaeus
The date of Matthew's writing can be deduced from this report by Irenaeus, a second-century church father, who said that Matthew composed his gospel "while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and founding the church in Rome." (Against Heresies, III.1.1) The only time that we know of Peter and Paul together in the capital of the Roman Empire was the early to mid-60s.

p. 42, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Here, McDowell does not mention the other half of Irenaeus' statement about the gospel of Matthew. It is unlikely that our Gospel of Matthew is the one that Irenaeus references. Irenaeus refers to the gospel he is familiar with as being written in Hebrew, not Koine Greek. This draws into question the dating of our Gospel of Matthew, since Irenaeus may not be referencing the same document. Here is the full quote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

Against Heresies, III.1.1

Destruction of Jersualem in 70 CE

McDowell also mentions the dating dillemma centered around the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem:

[Critics] argue that Matthew must have been written after the event, because predictive prophecy like this is not possible. (They do this because they hold an antisupernatural worldview.) If it can be demonstrated that supernatural events can occur (which is one of this book's objectives), then their argument does not hold up.

p. 43, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Yes, this is the case. If I do not believe that supernatural things can happen, then I will not believe in supernatural predictive prophecy. This isn't an argument, just an assertion. Likewise, I could say that McDowell is being too generous and assuming that predictive prophecy is possible (he does this because he holds a pro-supernatural worldview). If it can be demonstrated that supernatural events cannot occur (which is one of this website's objectives), then his argument does not hold up. See? That was easy!

Some argue that these [Pharisaic Judaism and Christian Judaism] tensions primarily reflect the latter half of the first century, during the war with Rome which left these two groups as the only two surviving forms of Judaism. However, this is not a strong argument as the tensions had already started in the 60s.

p. 43, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

If this is the case, then this evidence actually bolsters my argument more than McDowell's. If the tension between Pharisaic Judaism and Christian Judaism was on the rise in 60 CE, then it is likely that the writing was on the wall for the destruction of the Second Temple.

Mark

Begging the Question, Again

This chapter begins with McDowell explaining how we know who Mark was in the first century. He exclusively cites the New Testament for these facts. Remember the title of the chapter: Is The New Testament Historically Reliable? We cannot assert that the claims of the New Testament are historical fact to prove that the New Testament is historical fact. We must examine the claims with the possibility that Mark is not who he says he is in the narrative, and use outside sources that corroborate or contradict the claim. In my opinion, it isn't worth addressing McDowell's arguments in this section for that reason.

Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE

I think it is possible, but not probable, that Mark was written before the 70 CE destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Donald Hagner cites a tentative date of 65 CE, referenced in McDowell's book:

"We made tentatively up for a date of about 65, shortly after the death of Peter. This places the initial readers in a time when they would have been subject to persecution, which would make sense of that significant motif in this Gospel." (Hagner, NT, 184)

p. 44, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

I think Hagner's argument for dating based on the motif of persecution in the Gospel is very weak, but I am still willing to concede that an early date is possible. Frankly, if I were trying to defend a pre-70 CE dating of Mark, I would be nervous that the proposed dating of 65 CE comes within five years of the critical fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy (Mark 13:1-2). This seems like shaky ground that could crumble in one direction or another. On this particular issue, if Mark was written before 70 CE, Jesus is a prophet who could predict the future. If Mark was written after 70 CE, Jesus is not a prophet. The dating of pre-70 CE versus post-70 CE seems to be a difference in theological commitments. The main reason I would date Mark after 70 CE is that I do not believe that Jesus prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. It seems to me that the main reason Hagner argues for a pre-70 CE date is because he believes Jesus prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. Again, I am not a scholar on any these issues, and I have no training in this subject. These are simply my first impressions.

Luke

I agree with McDowell's analysis that Luke was likely written before Acts yet after Mark. I believe Mark was written 70 CE or later, so Luke was likely written in 80 CE-90 CE. There must have been ample time for Mark's gospel to circulate, since Luke draws verbatim from it. The dating of this book is ultimately inconsequential to me.

Acts

In conclusion, a very strong case can be made to date the composition of Acts in the early 60s. This in turn provides a reference point that historians can use to date the three Synoptic Gospels that proceeded the book of Acts.

p. 46, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

From my understanding, the date of Acts is far from settled. The proposed dates range from 60 CE to the early 2nd century. Joseph B. Tyson, Professor emeritus of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University (SMU) explains the majority opinion on the date of Acts:

Most modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date, i.e., c. 80-c. 90 CE, and they cite a number of factors to support this dating. The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Roman armies in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts but is probably alluded to in Luke 21:20-24. But Acts could not have been written before c. 90 CE, since the author seems to be ignorant about Paul's letters, which were not collected and circulated before that date.

When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?, Joseph B. Tyson, April 2011

Tyson continues, explaining that a date of 80-90 CE would explain some key data points in the text:

...Paul's letters reveal that he claimed to be an apostle and that this status was vital to him. But in Acts 1:21-22 the criteria for being an apostle definitively exclude Paul from membership in this group. Further, Acts 1:13 has a list of eleven apostles, to which number Matthias is added to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). Acts makes it clear that the number of apostles cannot be more or less than twelve and that Paul is not included among them. It would be highly unlikely for an author who was also a companion of Paul to go to such lengths to exclude Paul from an office that he so vigorously claimed for himself.

When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written?, Joseph B. Tyson, April 2011

Those who defend the late date of Acts, like Joseph Tyson, argue that the letter of Acts could have been a early 2nd century response to the heresy of Marcionism. Here is an interesting article by Neil Godrey on this subject.

John

McDowell explains the dating of the Gospel of John in this way:

There is a wide possible timeframe for the date of John's writing and very little support for any specific period within the 60s-100 timeframe.

p. 46, Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Done deal! I would opt for a 90-100 CE dating of John, simply because of his high Christology.

Conclusion Regarding the Dating of the Gospels and Acts

I would date the Gospels and Acts as follows:

The Bibliographical Test for the Reliability of the New Testament

The Number of Manuscripts and Their Closeness to the Original

There are approximately 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts. (Source) Remember, we cannot know with confidence what the originals said, because we simply do not have them!

Back Next