Is the New Testament story about Jesus reliable?
1. Intro: Why is this question important?
It’s incredibly important. If the NT isn’t reliable, then we have no way of really knowing who Jesus was.
2. The NT:
a. As history.
Written self-consciously as history. Gospels: people’s names, place names, what time of day, year. Names of Roman officials.
b. Its relation to other historical information we know
Fits into what we know of Roman history. Same broad scope of history being played out.
c. Its literary style
Consistent with literary styles used in the first century.
d. The documents: no reason for skepticism
All of our access to history is through documents or monuments. Study of Julius Caesar is done through documents and monuments, and we are fairly confident about it. But with the NT, a great deal of skepticism. It’s not necessary. Confidence in material in NT because it's consistent with first century history. Written very early, within living memory.
3. Conclusion
We can have confidence that what we read is true as history. It presents the Jesus of history, in history. We can have confidence in his message, and his death on the cross for our sake.
Additional resources:
"The Evidence for Jesus" by William Lane Craig -- Craig provides an overview of some of the evidence in favor of the reliability of the New Testament.
It’s incredibly important. If the NT isn’t reliable, then we have no way of really knowing who Jesus was.
2. The NT:
a. As history.
Written self-consciously as history. Gospels: people’s names, place names, what time of day, year. Names of Roman officials.
b. Its relation to other historical information we know
Fits into what we know of Roman history. Same broad scope of history being played out.
c. Its literary style
Consistent with literary styles used in the first century.
d. The documents: no reason for skepticism
All of our access to history is through documents or monuments. Study of Julius Caesar is done through documents and monuments, and we are fairly confident about it. But with the NT, a great deal of skepticism. It’s not necessary. Confidence in material in NT because it's consistent with first century history. Written very early, within living memory.
3. Conclusion
We can have confidence that what we read is true as history. It presents the Jesus of history, in history. We can have confidence in his message, and his death on the cross for our sake.
Additional resources:
"The Evidence for Jesus" by William Lane Craig -- Craig provides an overview of some of the evidence in favor of the reliability of the New Testament.
posted by korean_darkness at 8:25 PM
7 Comments:
I just remembered another question that I forgot to ask..
I've noticed during a bible study that the genealogies presented in matthew 1 and luke 3 are a bit different. How do we account for these discrepancies?
- Justin
I think there was a bible study on this when we were going through Luke last year. I remember there being some different scholarly views (though I don't remember if they are factual or theory).
Matthew's is supposed to be Joseph's lineage and Luke is suppose to be Mary's.
As far as the extent to which they go back in ancestry, that may be due to the focus of Luke as a book written to all people, especially Gentiles. However, Matthew was probably written more for the Jews.
~Brian
Im not sure, but it says in Luke 3:23 that "[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," so to me it clearly recites Joseph's lineage. And in Matthew 1:16, "and Jacob the father of Joseph.." which also mentions his lineage, names a different father of Joseph and from there a different lineage. I guess this is kind of a small discrepancy, but its just one of the few ways how the gospels may be seen to contradict each other. Does anyone have any ideas on this?
- Justin
The most common explanation I've heard is also that Matthew reports Joseph's lineage and Luke reports Mary's. Glenn Miller of christian-thinktank.com writes that both geneaologies end in Joseph because in cases where parents had no sons, as was the case with Mary's parents, the husband of one of the daughters -- in this case Joseph, Mary's husband -- preserved the family name and inheritance:
"Joseph is already a legal heir of David, but he seems also to 'pick up' Mary's legal heritage, too. How?
"Probably through the law of levirate marriage.
"The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages."
Miller remarks that this is the generally accepted view, but the Expositor's Bible Commentary reports that a more plausible explanation is that
"Luke provides Joseph's real genealogy and Matthew the throne succession--a succession that finally jumps to Joseph's line by default. Hill (Matthew) offers independent Jewish evidence for a possible double line (Targ. Zech 12:12). This hypothesis has various forms. The oldest goes back to Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 225; cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 1. 7), who argued that Matthew provides the natural genealogy and Luke the royal--the reverse of the modern theory (so Alf, Farrer, Hill, Taylor, Westcott, Zahn). In its modern form the theory seems reasonable enough: where the purpose is to provide Joseph's actual descent back to David, this could best be done by tracing the family tradition through his real father Heli, to his father Matthat, and thus back to Nathan and David (so Luke); and where the purpose is to provide the throne succession, it is natural to begin with David and work down."
Maybe Pastor Won Ho has some thoughts on this.
Jason
I'll try to weigh in on this question.
I've heard the suggestion about Matthew tracing Joseph's lineage and Luke tracing Mary's. The problem with this, as has already been pointed out, is that Luke indicates that he's tracing Joseph's lineage. The "so it was thought" doesn't seem to indicate that he's tracing Mary's lineage; rather, it is just an indication of Jesus' supernatural birth. The other problem with this suggestion is that if you read the genealogies carefully, you'll notice that they converge at some points. So I think it's more reasonable to say that both Matthew and Luke are tracing Jesus' geneaology through Joseph. (A side point: It would be extremely unlikely for anyone in that time period in Judea to trace their genealogy through the mother; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it is without precedent.)
Now, if both Matt and Luke are tracing Joseph's lineage, how do we make sense of the apparent discrepancies? By the way, a quic note at the outset: the genealogies differ mostly between David and Jesus; before David, the genealogies are almost identical. But what accounts for the differences between David and Jesus? The short answer: Luke traces the physical ancestors back to David, while Matthew traces the successive heirs to the Davidic throne.
A few points for justification (in no particular order):
1) The genealogies go in different directions. Luke's (going backwards) is the more typical; Matthew's (going forwards) corresponds to the listing of a kingly dynasty.
2) This fits in with the purpose of both authors. Matthew's purpose is to show that Jesus is Israel's promised Messiah and King. This shapes the way he reports the genealogy such that it resembles a kingly dynasty. I would argue that based on where Luke has placed his genealogy (in chapter 3, sandwiched in between his baptism and the temptation), his interest is to show Jesus' full humanity. He is the second Adam, doing what the original man had failed to do. Therefore, he traces his genealogy back to Adam and picks out the physical descendants of David.
3) Matthew's purpose is even more nuanced, actually. He structures his genealogy into groups of 14-14-14 (1:17). Now, you may notice that Jeconiah (i.e. Jehoiachin) is included in 1:11 and 1:12. So you might think, "Hey, Matthew is fudging the record so that it fits his structure." Well, sort of. And it's excusable, because he's doing something artistic here. You see, Jehoiachin is both a pre- and post-exilic king, so he rightfully belongs in both verses.
But why do I say "rightfully"? What Matthew has done is to divide Israel's history into three major sections: the patriarchs, the Davidic reign (pre-exilic), and after the exile. God's promise to Abraham was that his seed would fill the earth: the theme of creation. God's promise to David was that his son would never leave the throne: the theme of dominion. God's promise to the post-exilic community was he would redeem them: the theme of redemption. Creation, dominion, and redemption--these are the major themes of Israel's history. And these would be brought to fulfillment in Israel's true Messiah and King, Jesus Christ. Matthew's genealogy is shaped to paint this portrait of what Jesus came to do.
So I saw a random thing that I was unsure of. That king you mentioned...Jehoiachin, was decreed to never have any descendants sit on the throne of David (Jer. 22:30).
Now, this might be able to be argued in a spiritual sense, but if they are both lineages for Joseph and taken in the same sense, then Jesus is a descendant of this king.
However, a theory that someone posed was since this was the line of Joseph, he wasn't truly of this line. Yet he was still a descendant of David by Mary's line if the one genealogy was taken to be hers.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue for the different lineages because of the problems that I mentioned before. These problems are greater, in my opinion, than the problem of this one prophecy.
I do think there is a way to explain the prophecy in Jeremiah 22:30. It is true that none of Jehoiachin had no children reign on teh throne. But there was a reversal of the curse even in the OT, when Zerubbabel (Jehoiachin's grandson) was offered the throne in Haggai 2:23. The reversal, however, did not take place until Jesus began to reign on David's throne.
Post a Comment
<< Home