36Gardiner, Theories, p. 269.
37See Karl Mannheim in Gardiner, Theories, pp. 244, 247.
38Blake in Gardiner, Theories, p. 331.
39Examples of these critiques are not hard to locate in the relevant literature. In an insightful comment, Fischer thinks that relativists confuse knowledge itself with the means by which knowledge is acquired. (See Fischer, Fallacies, pp. 44-45.) White adds that this is “a confusion which is typical in the philosophy of history, the confusion between the psychology of historical interpretation and its logic.” (See White in Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History, p. 199.) Another problem is that while relativists recognize both the existence and necessity of objectively-known facts, these are still under-emphasized due to the role of interpretation. (For a helpful comparison on this subject, contrast Collingwood’s distinction [in Gardiner, Theories, pp. 251-258] between the “outside” and the “inside” of an event.) Isaiah Berlin levels still another charge: terms like “subjective” and “relative” either “need correlatives, or else they turn out to be without meaning themselves.” In brief, what is the standard to be used in comparison (Berlin in Gardiner, Theories, pp. 324, 328)? Blake agrees with Berlin, complaining that there is otherwise “no alternative recognisable [sic] sense” of meaning for the subjective vocabulary (Blake in Gardiner, Theories, p. 335).
40As Nagel clearly admits (in Meyerhoff, Philosophy of History, p. 215).
41Walsh, Philosophy, p. 18. Some illuminating examples of historical investigations of the past are supplied by Delbrück’s methods of determining how ancient battles were fought in the times of the Greek and Roman empires. By examining the historical data, Delbrück successfully obtained information such as the size of the opposing armies, how they actually maneuvered, and other facets of specific battles in ancient times. For instance, see Edward M. Earle, ed., Makers of Modern Strategy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1943), especially pp. 264-268 for Delbrück’s historical techniques.
42Walsh, Philosophy, pp. 18-19.
43Cairns, God and Man, p. 34. For further details regarding our following discussion, compare also pp. 33-42, although we will diverge at certain points.
44See Otto Eisenschiml and Ralph Newman, Eyewitness: The Civil War as We Lived It (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1956).
45For details of Cairns’ treatment, see God and Man, chapter 2.
46Ibid., p. 97.
Appendix 2:
An Apologetic Outline
Throughout this volume, our presentation has been topical and directed either to specific critical challenges or to historical issues in the life of Jesus, rather than to a systematic overview of apologetics. In this appendix, our major purpose is to organize our answers, both to those who, in Part I, have attempted to explain away the unique elements in the life of Jesus, as well as to include the historical material from Part II. This will hopefully assist the reader in gaining a more systematic sense of the issues discussed in this book.
The material in this chapter will be organized according to topical, outline form for easier reference and will be divided into three major categories: the New Testament, Jesus, and miracle-claims. We will not be concerned here with the original challenges themselves, but only with the positive responses that were made to each one. In this way, the chapter will be a tighter unit and will not be disjointed as were our earlier discussions. Accordingly, comparatively few endnotes will be utilized. Instead, reference will be made back to the portion where the discussion originally occurred so that those sources can be checked.
A. The Trustworthiness of the New Testament
The condition of the New Testament was a recurring theme in Part I, where it was necessary to answer certain charges, especially against the reliability of the Gospels. So even though our evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus has been almost entirely gleaned from pre- and non-New Testament sources, we still made several responses to those who questioned the canonical Christian documents.
1.The New Testament has better manuscript evidence than any other ancient book (pp. 54-56).
a.There are over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts and portions of manuscripts. By comparison, the majority of classical works have less than 20 manuscripts.
b.The dates of the New Testament manuscripts are close to the original writings. One Gospel fragment (Ryland’s) dates from about 25 years after the Gospel of John and most of the New Testament (Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papyri) from 50–150 years after the originals. Most classical works date from 700–1400 years after the originals.
c.None of the canonical New Testament is lost or missing.1 By comparison, 107 of Livy’s 142 books of history have been lost and about one half of Tacitus’ 30 books of Annals and Histories is missing.
2.Good arguments can be given that each of the Gospels was either written by an eyewitness, or significantly influenced by firsthand testimony, as recognized by many contemporary scholars (p. 107).
a.The apostle Matthew is often taken to be either the author or the major source behind the first Gospel.
b.It is often recognized that Peter is the major apostolic influence for Mark’s Gospel.
c.That Luke is the author of the third Gospel and Acts is well supported by the data, including both his reliance on eyewitness sources (Luke 1:1-4), and his companionship with Paul.
d.There is a wealth of evidence that the fourth Gospel was either written by or crucially influenced by the eyewitness testimony of John.
3.Even without proving eyewitness authorship, the Gospels measure up well by normal historical standards used in ancient historiography. They are very close to the events that they record, with three out of four being dated within one generation and all four within seventy years of Jesus’ life, all during the lives of eyewitnesses (pp. 106-108).
4.The Gospels are trustworthy sources, as explained by A.M. Hunter (p. 108).
a.These Christian authors, like their Jewish counterparts, were careful to preserve traditional material.
b.The Gospels are close to eyewitness sources.
c.The Gospel authors were honest reporters.
d.The picture of Jesus presented in the four Gospels is virtually the same.2
5.The Gospels and Acts exhibit a specific interest in reporting historical facts, not mythology. This is especially the case when the life of Jesus is reported (pp. 52-54).3
6.Contemporary historians frequently oppose the application of radical criticism to New Testament studies. According to A.N. Sherwin-White and Michael Grant, such attacks fail at a number of crucial points (pp. 52-54).4
a.Numerous ancient works exhibit intentions and methodologies similar to that of the New Testament authors, and yet these ancient works are well accredited as historical works.