Some commenters here have raised questions (from a decidedly skeptical standpoint) about whether there is archaeological evidence (or even proof) of the New Testament accounts. But what they ought to be asking themselves (or at least find very interesting) is that, despite literally centuries of digging around in what we used to call the Holy Land, there has never been a single, smallest, most insignificant case of any discovery disproving or even contradicting any detail in the New Testament. To the contrary, find after find has bolstered confidence in what we read in the Gospels. A good example is the Pool of Siloam, long considered by skeptics to be a complete fabrication in the Gospel of John... That is, until 2004, when the pool was uncovered by workmen making repairs to Jerusalem's present day sewer system.
Some commenters have also demanded that the Scriptures demonstrate predictive power. I think discoveries like this should satisfy such demands.
Back in the days when I called my message board "Have Theology, Will argue" I wrote a blog piece, "Have Tomb, Will Argue" Two historians, The Biddles, ( married couple) proved that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is probably the actual site of the empty tomb. They proved conclusively that it is site Constantine chose as the actual site of the tomb. There is good reason to believe that he chose that site because he had proof it was the actual tomb.
I think the real importance of that Bruce book is what he says about Textual validity of the Gospels. That is so poorly understood by both sides that that's really in need of focus. As far as what he says about it compared to Textual critics I've read and other schools he gets B.
A terrific, newly published book on the trustworthiness of the New Testament narratives, which gives a compelling case for the Gospels having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and all before A.D. 70) is Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus, The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. The link is to an interview with the author. They start discussing The Case for Jesus at 5 minutes, 45 seconds in.
I simply could not put the book down once I started it, and finished the whole thing in two evenings. It's now on my reference shelf.
The good part about blogs like yours Vic, is that you link to good writings that are worth taking the time to read (as a guy has time for these things). Although I prefer turning the pages in a book, this is good stuff. Thanks. --Dave Duffy
7 comments:
Some commenters here have raised questions (from a decidedly skeptical standpoint) about whether there is archaeological evidence (or even proof) of the New Testament accounts. But what they ought to be asking themselves (or at least find very interesting) is that, despite literally centuries of digging around in what we used to call the Holy Land, there has never been a single, smallest, most insignificant case of any discovery disproving or even contradicting any detail in the New Testament. To the contrary, find after find has bolstered confidence in what we read in the Gospels. A good example is the Pool of Siloam, long considered by skeptics to be a complete fabrication in the Gospel of John... That is, until 2004, when the pool was uncovered by workmen making repairs to Jerusalem's present day sewer system.
Some commenters have also demanded that the Scriptures demonstrate predictive power. I think discoveries like this should satisfy such demands.
Back in the days when I called my message board "Have Theology, Will argue" I wrote a blog piece, "Have Tomb, Will Argue" Two historians, The Biddles, ( married couple) proved that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is probably the actual site of the empty tomb. They proved conclusively that it is site Constantine chose as the actual site of the tomb. There is good reason to believe that he chose that site because he had proof it was the actual tomb.
Pne I did in early days of my blog on The Web of Historicity about several of the sites what can be proved, the manger, peter's house, the tomb.
I think the real importance of that Bruce book is what he says about Textual validity of the Gospels. That is so poorly understood by both sides that that's really in need of focus. As far as what he says about it compared to Textual critics I've read and other schools he gets B.
A terrific, newly published book on the trustworthiness of the New Testament narratives, which gives a compelling case for the Gospels having been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and all before A.D. 70) is Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus, The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ. The link is to an interview with the author. They start discussing The Case for Jesus at 5 minutes, 45 seconds in.
I simply could not put the book down once I started it, and finished the whole thing in two evenings. It's now on my reference shelf.
here si the preview on Google books., you can read a great deal of it The Case For Jesus
looks good, I'm buying it.
The good part about blogs like yours Vic, is that you link to good writings that are worth taking the time to read (as a guy has time for these things). Although I prefer turning the pages in a book, this is good stuff. Thanks. --Dave Duffy
Post a Comment