Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Click here for the Redeeming Truth Radio show on “Who Really Wrote the Gospels?”

The “Gospel of Matthew” and “The Gospel of John” portions of this transcript were submitted as part of a discussion board for NBTS 521 at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  The class was taught by Dr. R. Wayne Stacy, author of the book “Where Jesus Walked: A Spiritual Journey Through the Holy Land.”  Due to the integration of the text with the post, Turabian format (with footnotes) is used for the “The Gospel of Matthew” and “The Gospel of John.”  MLA format is used for “The Gospel of Mark” and “The Gospel of John.”   My apologies beforehand for any confusion.

Progressive scholarship has taken over much of New Testament studies.  Some would have you believe that the gospels are a product not from apostolic authority, but by communities.  Even if communities wrote in honor of an apostle, would that not imply that the texts presented came from the apostle?  However, as you examine the evidence and not simply conjecture, you find that the evidence does not support a belief in a community based authorship of the gospels.  Rather, you find that tradition has been correct all along in that these gospel texts do indeed come from writers presenting eyewitness testimony concerning the life of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew

When it comes to the Bible and the authorship of the gospels, I am a traditionalist.  By “traditionalist” I mean that I hold to what the patristic fathers wrote about who the authors were.  Let’s be honest.  Despite the world-class scholarship we have today, we are still almost 2,000 years removed from the events.  We can speculate, but I believe the early church fathers knew who wrote the gospels.  That does not mean that they were correct necessarily in everything they wrote, but I believe they were correct in most of what they wrote.  As we look to the gospel of Matthew, I believe that Matthew the apostle was the author of at least most of what we have in the gospel today.  This is supported by internal and external evidence.

-external evidence for authorship

The early church fathers all agreed that Matthew the apostle was the author of the gospel.  Why dispute that claim when these men were writing very close to the time of the original church?  Eusebius writes, “The other followers of our Lord were also not ignorant of such things, as the twelve apostles and the seventy, together with many others: yet of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones who have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity.  Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.”[1]  Why is it impossible to think that Matthew first wrote a Hebrew version of the Gospel and later reworked a Gospel in Greek?  Even if you supposed that Matthew borrowed material from Mark that does not negate the fact that Matthew still could have written the text we now possess.  If the Greek version was more appropriate, why hang on to the Hebrew version?  Matthew could still be the author of both.

-internal evidence for authorship

Carson and Moo give two, among many other, internal evidences for Matthean authorship: “1. Only this gospel refers to “Matthew the tax collector” (10:3)…3. The assumption that Matthew was a tax collector (essentially a minor in customs official collecting tariff on goods in transit) and was the author of this gospel makes sense of a number of details…A number of peculiarly Matthean periscopes do depict financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15).”[2]

-Date

Most likely, Matthew was written either in the late 50s or the early 60s.  Some has postulated that Matthew was written after 70AD during the destruction of the Temple.  However, if Luke wrote both Acts and his Gospel which did not record any event after 64 AD and he used Matthew as an eyewitness account, then Matthew must have been written prior to 64AD.

-purpose

I personally believe that Matthew wrote first to show that Jesus was the Messiah.  The book may have been a sort of apologetic for a Jewish audience.  Along those lines, I think Matthew wrote his gospel to show that Jesus, or Yeshua, was the Messiah who had long been prophesied and was the fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible’s prophecies.  As Carson and Moo write, “Because Matthew devotes so much space to Old Testament quotations, some have suggested that he wrote his gospel to teach Christians how to read their Bibles—what we refer to as the Old Testament.”[3]

-intended destination

I believe Matthew intended his gospel for the Jews first perhaps in Syria.  However, as Carson and Moo write, “Matthew wrote his gospel with certain kinds of readers in mind, rather than readers in a particular location.  Moreover, the strong arguments of Bauckham and others, to the effect that the gospels were first written to be read by all Christians, should not be lightly set aside.”[4]

The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark is short, sweet, and to the point.  Mark is thought to be the earliest completed Gospel that we possess in our modern New Testament.  But, who wrote the Gospel?  It would appear that John Mark wrote the gospel under the tutelage of the Apostle Simon Peter.  I feel that for this reason that this Gospel could be called “The Gospel of Simon Peter.”  Evidence, externally and internally, exists for this fact.

-external evidence for authorship

As with Matthew’s Gospel, the early church leaders unanimously agreed that John Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name.  Eusebius writes, “This also the presbyter said: ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III.39.15).  Peter shows that John Mark was with him for a time in Rome (called Babylon “symbolically”), “Your sister church here in Babylon* sends you greetings, and so does my son Mark” (1 Peter 5:13, NLT).  Peter shows that Mark was with him and this adds credibility to the patristic father’s writings about Mark.

-internal evidence for authorship

Internally, clues exist that John Mark was the author.  First, several references exist pertaining to Peter.  In Mark, we find references to Peter’s rejection of Jesus during Jesus’ trial (chapter 14:66-72).  The structure of Mark’s gospel even is comparable to Peter’s messages found in the Book of Acts.  Secondly, discipleship is key to Mark’s gospel.  This would have been a major them of Peter’s messages, too.

Also, we are perhaps met with John Mark in an incident in his Gospel that is recorded nowhere else.  It has been noted that John Mark’s home may have been the place where the Last Supper was held.  But, more noteworthy is the reference in Mark 14:51-52, “Then all his disciples deserted him and ran away. 51 One young man following behind was clothed only in a long linen shirt. When the mob tried to grab him, 52 he slipped out of his shirt and ran away naked” (Mark 14:50–52).  It has been held that the young man may have been John Mark himself.

-Date

Evidence is mounting that Mark wrote sometime in the 50sAD.  New fragments have been found that may have been dated from Mark’s Gospel to the 50s, but we will have to wait to hear more from these discoveries.

-purpose

Mark’s main purpose may have been for evangelism.  He wanted to write an easy-to-read book that would show the life of Christ in a brief, compact way; similar to a gospel tract.  Mark may have also written to show the importance of perseverance despite mounting persecutions.

-intended destination

Lea and Black give us our answer as they write, “Internal evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a Roman audience.  His explanation of Jewish customs implies that he wrote to a Gentile audience unacquainted with Jewish practices (7:3-4).  He frequently translated Aramaic expressions so that his Roman audience could understand them” (Lea and Black, The New Testamant: Its Background and Message, 144).

The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of Luke is among the most exquisite books among ancient Greek texts.  Some have argued that Luke’s equal in the fluency of Greek is found only in Homer’s Iliad.  When Greek students seek to learn biblical Greek, they do not start with Luke.  They start with John or Mark.  They end with Luke because of Luke’s complex writing style.  Evidence suggests that Luke, the physician and companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

-external evidence for authorship

As with Matthew and Mark, early church leaders unanimously contributed Luke’s Gospel to the physician Luke, who was also the companion to Paul.  Luke not only wrote the Gospel but he also wrote the book of Acts.  Acts ends with Paul in Rome.  The personal pronoun “we” is used to show that the author was with Paul in Rome.  Of those listed in Rome with Paul in his letters: Epaphras (Col. 4:12), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25), Timothy (Phil. 2:19), Tychicus (Col. 4:7), Mark (Col. 4:10), Jesus called Justus (Col. 4:11), Aristarchus (Col. 4:10), Onesimus (Col. 4:9), Luke (Col. 4:14), and Demas (Col. 4:14); only Luke is qualified to be the author of the Gospel.  As Lea and Black write, “Of the companions, Aristarchus, Tychicus, Timothy, and Mark are mentioned in the third person at some point in Acts and thus could not be the author of the book.  Demas later deserted Paul (2 Tim. 4:20) and is not likely the author of the book.  Epaphroditus joined Paul after his arrival in Rome and could not have described the voyage to Rome.  Epaphras also apparently arrived in Rome at a later date (Col. 1:7).  No tradition supports the authorship of the third Gospel by either Jesus (Justus) or Onesimus.  Logically Luke becomes the best choice for the author of the book.  Since the author of Acts is also the author of the third Gospel, we suggest that Luke authored both writings” (Lea and Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd Edition, 147).

-internal evidence for authorship

Within the Gospel of Luke, medical conditions are listed in more precise details than in any other Gospel.  This would be evidence of someone who had medical knowledge.  Paul writes in Colossians 4:14, “Luke, the beloved doctor, sends his greetings, and so does Demas” (Col 4:14).  So, the inclusion of medical knowledge in the text adds to the veritability that Luke, the physician, wrote the text.  We also find that the author was interested in writing down an accurate and orderly account of the life of Jesus.  Luke writes, “

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.* 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught” (Lk 1:1–4).

-Date

Luke wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts.  Some even think that it may be one unified book, although I have my doubts about that.  Nonetheless, Acts ends with Paul in Rome.  Paul and Peter were martyred in 67AD.  But, Paul was under house arrest long before that time.  So, 64AD has been tossed around as the probable date of Acts composition.  Since the Gospel was written earlier than Acts, the Gospel must have been written around 61-63AD.

-purpose

Luke wrote to a Gentile audience and showed that Jesus ministered to the outcasts, the Gentiles, and the poor.  It is in Luke we find the only listing of the beautiful parables of “The Parable of the Prodigal Son” and “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” given by Jesus.  Luke provided eyewitness testimony from several that were unlisted by Matthew and Mark.  Internal evidence suggests that Mary, the mother of Jesus, may have been interviewed for the text.

-intended destination

Rome is a probable location for Luke’s original destination.  One thing is for sure; Luke wrote for Gentile believers in Christ.

The Gospel of John

John’s gospel has always been my favorite.  Now I know by our readings that some speculate that John of Zebedee was not the author, but I personally do not see how.  The only reason I can guess is that some would not desire an apostle, or eyewitness, to be the author of a New Testament text.  Nonetheless, strong internal and external evidences show that John the apostle, son of Zebedee was the author of the Gospel that bears his name.

-external evidence for authorship

Several patristic fathers wrote that John wrote the gospel.  Some indicate that John was a pastor in Ephesus before he died.  On that several patristic fathers wrote about John composing his gospel, Carson and Moo writes, “Not only did Irenaeus but Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian provide firm second-century evidence for the belief that the apostle John wrote this gospel.”[5]

-internal evidence for authorship

I think it is simply logical.  Many things could be said about the internal evidence for John’s authorship being the apostle.  Carson and Moo provide two of three powerful internal arguments for John of Zebedee being the author of the gospel that bears his name, “1. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls compels us to recognize that it is unnecessary to resort to a person of expansion into the Hellenistic world to account for John’s characteristic expressions…2. …that at least in some instances John’s quotations are closer in form to the Hebrew or Aramaic than to the Greek.”[6]  For me the most powerful evidence comes from John’s conclusion.  Throughout the gospel we read of the “beloved disciple.”  Then John ends with this, “This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate.  Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.”[7]

-Date

Strong tradition holds that John wrote while pastor in Ephesus.  It would seem that John wrote around 80AD or sometime in the 80s AD.

-purpose

Eusebius quotes Clement in saying, “But John, last of all, perceiving that what had reference to the body in the gospel of our Savior, was sufficiently detailed, and being encouraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the spirit, he wrote a spiritual gospel.”[8]  So, I think John filled in the gaps and wrote a more theologically based gospel showing the person of Jesus.

-intended destination

Because there are strong reasons for holding that John lived in Ephesus at the time of the gospel’s composition, it could have been that John wrote to Ephesus first.  Carson and Moo write, “If John the son of Zebedee wrote this book while residing in Ephesus, then it might be inferred that he prepared the book for readers in this general part of the empire.”[9]

Why authorship is an important issue in today’s times?

In a world that is becoming more skeptical, I think it is important to show that the New Testament is built upon strong authority.  Showing apostolic authorship to Matthew and John, while also showing John Mark building his gospel from the teachings of Simon Peter and Luke’s from Paul and other early eyewitnesses, gives more credence to the New Testament text.  My faith was damaged when John Dominick Crossan and others of the Jesus Seminar claimed that the New Testament showed little about Jesus.  However, I was led to the works of some great New Testament scholars who showed otherwise.  This is one reason why I am proud to be part of a university that stands on truth and not popularity.  Being shown that the New Testament was built upon apostolic authority was one of the steps that God used to bring me back to the faith that I once enjoyed.  So, I think the issue of displaying apostolic authorship and authority is essential.

Bibliography

 Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005)

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History.

All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, comes from Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).

Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd Edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2003).

[1] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III.24.5-6.

[2] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 147-148.

[3] Ibid, 157.

[4] Ibid, 156-157.

[5] Ibid, 231.

[6] Ibid, 236.

[7] Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), Jn 21:24–25.

[8] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VI.14.7.

[9] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 267.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Who Really Wrote the Gospels?”

  1. For the record the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not have the Resurrection, which I am sure you are aware.
    The long ending is widely considered a Christian ‘add-on’., thus for the sake of political correctness the gospel of ‘Mark’ is considered open ended.

    Names were only added toward the end of the 2nd century.

    The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century.
    He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels.
    http://www.thenazareneway.com/

    1. This is completely untrue with the exception of Mark’s longer ending. The ending of Mark most likely ended at verse 8. However, one still finds that the resurrection is presented. The women are told that Jesus had indeed risen and would soon appear to them. There is mounting evidence that Mark was written far earlier than expected, perhaps even as early as the late 40s AD. There is good reason to believe that all the Synoptic Gospels were written before 62AD. As far as the early church fathers, I would simply direct you to their writings. Check out the writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. In their writings, they quote the Synoptic Gospels multiple times. Liberal historians would still date the Gospels in the first century, but towards the end of the first century. There exists an early creed of Jesus’ resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 that dates to within a few months to no later than 5 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. A recent book written that holds great information concerning this is by former atheist J. Warner Wallace called “Cold-Case Christianity.” I highly recommend this work.

      1. There will always be dispute regarding such issues.
        However, I am wont to side with recognized experts in the field and in this case the expert is generally regarded as Bart Ehrman.

        Interpretation is not relevant for such inquiry, as it is will usually reveal what the reader wishes it to reveal.
        Everyone is perfectly entitlement to their own opinion but not their own facts.The facts are what they are and there is no evidence to support authorship of the gospel at all, only interpretation.

        Mounting evidence for an earlier Mark?
        Source please?

        You don’t consider Justin Martyr and Papias church fathers, then?

      2. Yes, Justin Martyr and Papias are indeed church fathers. They quote the Gospel narratives, as well. I have a copy of both here somewhere. I list Clement of Rome and Ignatius because they are earlier fathers who also quote the Gospel narratives. Honestly, there are thousands of quotations from the early church fathers from not only the Gospels but the entire New Testament. For information concerning Mark, look at Wallace’s book. Also, there are promising discoveries of early fragments of Mark. Let me look up the scholar’s name. He actually debated Ehrman on this issue. When reading guys like Ehrman and Crossan, understand that they too have a bias and an agenda. Be sure to check with scholars like Craig Evans, Ben Witherington III, and Gary Habermas for a healthy balance. There are complete books of the New Testament dating as early as 150 AD.

      3. I’m not entirely sure about Justin Martyr’s quotations of the gospels. Justin was an apologist and was a devout Christian. So, surely he knew of the early gospel texts. No reputable scholar (without some form of bias) would claim that the gospels were written outside of the first century, especially since there exist fragments of the Gospel of John that date to 115AD. Regardless of Justin’s quotations, it is moot in comparison to the wealth of quotes from other early church leaders. Go to the following site to see a list of a few of the 36,000 quotations from the New Testament that are presented by the early church fathers. Check out http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers.htm

  2. I have a feeling that some of my comments may be going astray.Is this true?
    If you would rather I not comment then I will abide by your wishes.
    Only, I feel that blind adherence to an evangelical perspective utilizing only sources that confirm to any preconceived belief rather defeats the object of searching for truth, don’t you?
    As for the link…Dating the new testament, a cursory visit to Wiki states quite clearly that only five of Ignatius letters are considered genuine, the rest spurious.
    So there is little point in discussing this source when it is surrounded by so much controversy.
    The link I provided for you re Justin Martyr and Papias is much more credible and has a lot less Christian bias.

    I would still be interested in reading details of the source that states the Synoptics were all written before 62 AD and you have still not provided and unbiased scholarly attestation for your claim authorship of the gospels either.

    Once again, Re: Josephus. No reputable scholar believes the TF is genuine. However, if you have an unbiased source I would be interested to read their perspective.

    1. I haven’t had a chance to review all your comments. I review comments individually and have actually been flooded with comments recently….which is a good thing.

      Understand that there is great bias in biblical scholarship. There is confirmed cases where archaeological evidence that accurately confirms biblical people and events have been suppressed due to politics. (See the recent discoveries known to support King David and King Solomon.) It is important to check both sides of the debate. I have read those who reject Josephus’ account. However, what they fail to consider is that Josephus also records James the brother of Jesus’ death after the documentation of Jesus. Josephus writes as if he has already mentioned Jesus. There have even been ancient documents of Josephus found that have the reference to Jesus in the text…although it is less Christianized. There are many reputable scholars who would hold to the legitimacy of Josephus’ reference.

      The problem with “bias” is that everyone has it…including scholars. To be fair, the seeker for truth must consider both sides of the equation to find the answer. If you toss aside scholars for perceived bias, then you would have to toss aside all of them. Rest assured, Bart Ehrman and J. Dominick Crossan have every bit of a bias, if not more so, than William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, John Lennox, and others. But evangelical scholars are in many cases tossed aside due to their perceived bias. More times than not, evangelical scholars have been far more accurate in historical data than liberal scholars.

      Consider the fact that liberal scholars did not feel John’s Gospel to be accurate before the 1900s due to his reference of the Pool of Siloam. The Pool of Siloam was discovered exactly where John recorded it to be with the same amount of colonnades mentioned in the text. This was found in the early 1900s. Liberal scholars said that John’s Gospel was written far into the second century until the Ryland’s Papyrus fragment was discovered. The fragment, a portion of John’s gospel, dated to 115AD and was found far from the origin of the gospel which forced a date of at least 90AD to the gospel. Again, a good starting point would be J. Warner Wallace’s “Cold-Case Christianity.” He has a lot of references in his book. Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” presents a lot of information from scholars compiled in one massive volume. You can never go wrong with Craig Evans, Gary Habermas, and N.T. Wright.

      Again, there is no such thing as unbiased scholarly attestation. Everyone…especially Ehrman and Crossan…has a bias of some sort…EVERYONE…including you and I. The quest is to find who has the evidence to point in the right direction. Evangelicals have thousands of years of tradition on their side. It would take an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary to overturn it.

      Blessings.

      1. The point with Josephus regarding James is an example of interpretation. Christians NEED this to be the brother of the character Jesus, but in actual fact it could read as anyone and the name Yashua was commonplace.
        Hence huge skepticism regarding the text.
        The consensus suggests that when the divine reference is removed there could just be a link to Yashua..if you really want to find it.
        That Josephus was a Jew, what are the chances he would have considered Yashua the Messiah?
        Be honest?
        And if he did, why did he not become a Christian? This is why the claim that the whole text is genuine is a bit silly, to be honest.

        I have mentioned, I will not consider anymore, Habermas and especially Craig who is very well versed in arguing apologetics but somewhat short on science. And of course, he too, has had to sign a contract of employment stating he fully accepts the inerrancy of the bible, which of course is ridiculous as it suffocates genuine inquiry.
        How can you truly trust someone’s opinion when he is constrained by such an ethic?
        It is, in fact, unethical.

        I hold little truck with scripture. Archaeology tells a better tale. Yes, it errs, but so far, the likes of Finkelstein and Herzog have been spot on, whereas an archaeologist such as Albright, although he set out to establish biblical credibility through archaeology, failed at every turn and is now regarded as somewhat of a benchmark as what NOT to do in archaeology.

        The Exodus has been demonstrated to have never taken place. Moses is a fictional character. The conquest of Canaan as described in the bible is false. These things never happened. The evidence clearly shows this.
        Pretty much every recognized archaeologist with no axe to grind agrees with this. There are even top Rabbis who concur with the findings and have been urging full disclosure.

        These things have been known for ages,of course, yet because of religious and political sensitivities it is no wonder there is no rush for full scale divulging of such facts

        Unbiased investigation begins where both parties, for example, in this case you and I , agree that EVERYTHING is open to question and nothing is considered ‘Truth’ or ‘fact’ unless it can be tested.
        The Exodus is a perfect case in point. And once it was tested, has been shown to be false.

        The ramifications for Christianity(and Islam, of course) are immense and one day these issues will have to be addressed.

      2. There is no doubt that there was some interpolation with the text, but it is erred to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christians do not need this quote, because there are several other references by Jewish and Roman sources. This is just one of several references to Jesus of Nazareth. However, Josephus was hated by the Jewish authorities because he had befriended Rome. If it were not for the comment about Jesus, we probably would not even know about Josephus. This speaks to the authenticity of the quote. Most scholars would agree that the quote is legitimate to some degree. Even if you do not desire to read from Habermas’ and Craig’s work…which is a great disservice to oneself…there are several other great evangelical scholars to consider. The situation with Exodus is not as closed-shut as one might think. Evidence is surfacing that the event truly did occur. Other evidence suggests the parting of the waters was very possible. There is evidence of Hebrew influence in Egypt. Even the name “Moshe” has Egyptian links. I wish I had time to list some of the evidences, but I cannot right now as I am doing three things at one time. Multi-tasking is not a strength of mine. 🙂 But, I will list some of the growing evidence or provide resources a little later.

        Blessings.

      3. Also, one more thing to consider. Some things cannot be tested by mere scientific means. There is another type of evidence considered “court-room evidence.” This must be considered as well. This is where you take things which can be tested and provide a mounting case for and/or against something. Many things, especially in history, must be left to probabilities. Is there a greater reason for believing this happened (even if incredible in nature) than not?

  3. We are going in several different directions in our conversation. I have read about evidence in support of the Exodus, but I am not as well read on that particular subject as I am on the gospels and the historicity of Jesus. You are incorrect that there are no references to Jesus outside of the Bible. For a full list, check out Josh McDowell’s work “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” If you are unwilling to check resources that oppose your viewpoint, then I am afraid that there is not much more than can be said. I am in a unique position that most are. I left the ministry for seven years and nearly gave up my faith. I checked those scholars that you quote. But something happened. I read those from the other side of the aisle, checked their sources, and checked their evidence. I found that those in the evangelical camp based their findings on actual first and second hand resources. I also found that their research was based on solid evidence instead of guess work and conjecture. I also found that they were more willing to hear from the other side than those in the ultra-liberal section of biblical scholarship. So, not only was I persuaded back in the faith, I also had real experiences with God that confirmed the authenticity of the faith. Some would say that the things that happened to me were just coincidences. But, it is a funny thing that the coincidences ceased when I stopped praying.

    Getting back on topic, there are documented evidences which almost all mainstream scholars (and not just those who seek public fame) would concede that point to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. As a matter of fact, even ultra-liberal scholars like Crossan would admit the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. There are references to Jesus (Yeshua) in the Babylonian Talmud. There are references to Jesus in the works of Roman historians such as Suetonius and Tacitus.

    There is also evidence to support the Exodus, but not to the degree of say Jesus’ historicity. It is a bold statement to claim that there exists no evidence for the Exodus. But, this gives me a challenge for another article. I am bending the rules because your posts are beginning to take an “ad hominem” approach, but we’ll let it slide for now. If you are unwilling to consider evidence and scholarly work from those who present a case that clashes with your worldview, then there is not much more I can offer. I have read the works of Ehrman, Crossan, and others and have found them in want. I am just challenging you to give evangelical scholarship the same chance that I gave liberal scholarship. Some have said, “I will not believe unless Jesus stands right in front of me and says ‘I am real.'” However, even if such an event were to transpire, some would still pass off such an experience as a hallucination or the result their past meal.

    I will research the case for the Exodus and present some of the evidence that is surfacing at a later time. This has the makings of another article. So, I thank you for that. Unfortunately, I am not prepared to discuss the Exodus at the present time as I will need more time to research the issue.

    Let this be our final post on this issue until we both have time to do more research. Be looking for an article on the evidence for Exodus some time in the future.

    Just a side note, I may not be on the site until later in the week. I normally do not check the site as much as I have, but I have enjoyed our conversation so I have checked it more often than I normally do. I will be back on the site later in the week with another article. We’ll chat with you later in the week.

    Blessings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s