Obviously there will be an element of faith as we read scripture. However, from a historical perspective, what we have is truly remarkable. You may remember that I stated that what we know of Alexander the Great is from things that were written 500 years after his death. Some have suggested that this has been “debunked.” However, my statement wasn’t some sort of philosophical tactic; rather, it is historical fact that can be verified upon investigation. Interestingly enough, although what we have regarding Alexander is written 500 years after his death, we still take it as fact. Now, consider Jesus. We have thousands of documents on the person of Jesus Christ dating so early as within 30 years after His death. The way you know that the truth was maintained in the oral tradition is by the fact that heresy was fought. If there were a numerous accepted stories that circulated the church, how could they form a consensus of what heresy was?
We know that there were multiple authors by:
a. Varying writing styles – When reading the Greek, there is a night/day difference between the way Peter writes and the way Luke or Paul writes.
b. Notable people of the church who lived in that time affirmed authorship. We have people like Tertullian who would quote things from the letters and also mention the author.
c. We have an idea of authorship by dating. For example, the Gospel of Thomas is openly rejected because it is dated in the late second century, long after Thomas died. Therefore, he couldn’t have been the author.
d. Circulation in the church. Letters would only circulate in the church if they were from what they saw as most credible, those who interacted with Jesus or was dictating from someone who had.
As always, I appreciate the questions. I hope I have shed some light on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"d. Circulation in the church. Letters would only circulate in the church if they were from what they saw as most credible, those who interacted with Jesus or was dictating from someone who had."
They would only circulate in the church if it conforms with what they want others to think. Think "WatchTower"
Hey Bigtex,
Let us also remember that the majority of what we have is from witnesses. Why should I believe anything I read about Ben Franklin's personality? About Roosevelt's likes and dislikes? Why should I believe anything about Alexander the Great, since it was written 500 years later? Does it all not come from human testimony? Now, consider the Bible, thousands of documents. In a time when persecution against Christians were rampant, Christianity and the truth of the Gospel was thriving.
Lets also remember that there are many, many books (thousands possibly)about Santa Claus. If the church decided they were true and published them as true, they would HAVE to be true, huh?
You haven't answered my question. Do you believe in the credibility of a person who existed by the name of Alexander the Great - though the only sources we have were written 500 years after his death?
The statement of Santa Clause falls apart in so many levels. If people were dying for their belief in Santa, if we found evidence of a person called Mrs. Clause, if thousands of things were written that assert Santa as a real person, then perhaps we should be open to the idea that Santa exists. If anything provides that much evidence, it would be irresponsible not to. Now, consider Jesus. Thousands of things are written about Him. But that's not all - it turns out we have evidence pointing to the existence of Pilate. No person has had the impact that Christ as. Christianity and the message Christ spread like wildfire in the midst of an Empire that was determined to exterminate it. You don't think that requires our attention?
"You haven't answered my question. Do you believe in the credibility of a person who existed by the name of Alexander the Great - though the only sources we have were written 500 years after his death?"
No, not fully. I believe there was a man named Alexander who lived in that time. But not all facts about him can be believed wholeheartedly if it took 500 years to write about him.
Jason, what you wrote "is not entirely accurate", to quote the secdef from Independence Day.
Plutarch's writings about Alexander of Macedon (I refuse to call Alexander "great" because while he was a brilliant leader of men in combat, his meandering conquests were really just one long extended ego trip) date to some five centuries after Alexander's death. But Plutarch was able to draw on sources that were written at or close after the time of Alexander's death. This includes Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals and founder of the Ptolemaic Dynasty that ruled Egypt until Cleopatra's suicide around 31 B.C. Ptolemy wrote a biography of Alexander.
Besides the written evidence, there is also the archaeological evidence. We know that a Persian Empire encompassed the entirety of the Middle East, and entirely consistent with the campaigns of Alexander, the territory of the former Persian Empire was replaced by the Seleucid Greek state that at its greatest extent stretched Asia Minor to the borders of India, and the Ptolemaic kingdom centered in Egypt and which also included for a time Israel and the Levantine coast. No one is going to dispute that the Seleucids and the Ptolemies did not exist. There is the coinage and the written documentation and other substantial evidence.
If you are going to doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, then you have to provide an alternative explanation for what caused the end of the Persian Empire and the rise of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires.
When Alexander laid siege to the city of Tyre, the city was on an island off the coast of the mainland. Alexander ordered the construction of a causeway to connect Tyre to the mainland so that he could bring up his troops and siege engines to the walls of the city. Ever since then, Tyre has been connected to the mainland. Provide an alternate explanation for how this happened.
Now it is quite likely that not everything in Plutarch's account of Alexander actually happened, or that some of the events he relates are fanciful exaggerations of what really happened. Historians back then tended to do things like that. For example, Alexander's killing of a childhood friend named Cleitus. The account available to us has Cleitus reciting lines from some Greek play or poem and afterwards Alexander runs him through with a spear. The lines attributed to Cleitus might be entirely fictional, but his murder by Alexander real.
Post a Comment