We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Ek besef daar is waarskynlik 'n groot spektrum van menings oor hierdie saak. Maar wat is die algemene konsensus onder akademici oor die historiese betroubaarheid van die Bybel? Is dit 'n gesonde historiese dokument, of is dit bloot 'n boek met legendes? Word sommige beskou as meer histories akkuraat as ander, aangesien die aantal boeke wat uit die Bybel bestaan, beskou word?
Die algemene 'gevoel' is dat dit nie historiese feite of legendes is nie. Dit is 'n boek met verhale, waarvan baie werklike gebeurtenisse agter die rug het, en baie wat dit nie het nie. Daar is wel 'n bespreking oor presies wat waar is.
Die bekende verhale soos die vloed en die uittog het oor die algemeen geen of min bewyse agter die rug, en dikwels baie bewyse daarteen. Oor die algemeen is daar baie min argeologiese bewyse, indien enige, vir die verhale in die Bybel. Poging om te bewys dat daar 'n verenigde koninkryk onder koning Dawid was, was byvoorbeeld onoortuigend.
Daar is egter historiese dokumente wat sommige dinge in die Bybel bevestig, veral oorloë en beleëringe deur Babiloniese en Persiese konings. Baie van die konings wat in die Bybel genoem word, het hul eie geskrewe tekste gelaat, en in sommige gevalle stem dit ooreen met die Bybel oor die gebeure.
Sien ook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history
Historisiteit van die Bybel
Die historisiteit van die Bybel is die vraag na die verhouding tussen die Bybel en die geskiedenis - nie net die aanvaarbaarheid van die Bybel as geskiedenis nie, maar ook die vermoë om die literêre vorme van Bybelse vertelling te verstaan. [1] 'n Mens kan die Bybelse historisiteit uitbrei tot die beoordeling of die Christelike Nuwe Testament 'n akkurate weergawe is van die historiese Jesus en die Apostoliese Tydperk. Dit hang af van die mening van die geleerde.
By die bestudering van die boeke van die Bybel ondersoek geleerdes die historiese konteks van gedeeltes, die belangrikheid van die gebeure deur die skrywers en die kontras tussen die beskrywings van hierdie gebeure en ander historiese bewyse.
Volgens teoloog Thomas L. Thompson, 'n verteenwoordiger van die Kopenhagen -skool, lewer die argeologiese rekord yl en indirekte bewyse vir die verhale van die Ou Testament as geskiedenis. [a] [3] [b] [5] [6] Ander, soos argeoloog William G. Dever, meen dat Bybelse argeologie die Ou -Testamentiese verhale bevestig en uitgedaag het. [7] Terwyl Dever die Kopenhagen -skool gekritiseer het vir sy radikalisme, is hy nog lank nie 'n Bybelse letterkundige nie en dink hy dat die doel van Bybelse argeologie nie net is om die Bybelse verhaal te ondersteun of in diskrediet te bring nie, maar om 'n studieveld te wees in eie reg. [8] [9]
Is die Bybel histories akkuraat?
Die Bybel bevat twee soorte inligting. Sommige daarvan kan nagegaan word, sommige daarvan nie. Dit is byvoorbeeld nie moontlik om die akkuraatheid van Genesis 1: 1 — “ in die begin wetenskaplik te kontroleer nie#” Terwyl die bevestiging geensins in stryd is met beskikbare wetenskaplike gegewens, is die stelling terselfdertyd een van die voor-menslike geskiedenis en leen dit dus nie tot empiriese ondersoek nie.
Aan die ander kant bevat die Skrif honderde verwysings wat uit die agtergrond van die menslike geskiedenis ontstaan. Hierdie kan op akkuraatheid getoets word. As dit so is dat die Bybel in duisende historiese besonderhede presies bewys word, is dit nie onredelik om tot die gevolgtrekking te kom dat die inligting daarvan in ander aangeleenthede ewe korrek is nie.
Een van die wonderlikste kenmerke van die Bybel is trouens sy ongelooflike betroubaarheid in die kleinste besonderhede. Kom ons kyk na enkele voorbeelde van Bybelse presisie.
(1) Tydens sy persoonlike bediening het Jesus eens deur die gebied van Samaria gegaan. Naby Sychar het die Here stilgehou vir 'n kort rus by die put van Jacob. Hy het 'n Samaritaanse vrou in gesprek gevoer, waartydens Hy voorgestel het dat hy die vrou kan voorsien van water wat haar dors altyd kan les. Deur die aard van die instruksies van die Meester te verstaan, het die vrou, met verwysing na Jacobs goed, verklaar: “Sir, u het niks om mee te teken nie, en die put is diep ” (Joh. 4:11). Die stelling is heeltemal korrek, want selfs nou, twintig eeue later, is die put van Jacob ongeveer 80 meter diep, gelykstaande aan 'n gebou met agt verdiepings!
(2) Dink na oor 'n ander voorbeeld. In Handelinge 10 is die verslag van Petrus se besoek in die stad Joppe. Lukas verklaar dat Petrus in die huis van Simon, 'n leerlooier van velle, bly. Toe sê die historikus, amper as 'n nagedagte, wie se huis aan die see is (Handelinge 10: 6). Hugh J. Schonfield, skrywer van die berugte boek, Die pasga -plot (en beslis geen vriend van die Christendom nie), het as volg op hierdie gedeelte kommentaar gelewer:
Dit is 'n interessante feitelike detail, want die leerlooiers het seewater gebruik om huide in leer te omskep. Die velle is in die see geweek en daarna met kalk behandel voordat die hare afgeskaf is.Die Bybel was reg, New York: The New American Library, 1959, p. 98).
(3) Beskou nog 'n interessante geval van presisie in die Bybel. Toe Paulus op pad was na Rome vir verhoor, het die skip waarop hy gevaar het, in 'n vreeslike storm betrokke geraak. Toe dit uiteindelik duidelik word dat die vaartuig in 'n baie gevaarlike omstandigheid verkeer, gooi die bemanning die skip se ankers in die water. Terselfdertyd het hulle die roerbande losgemaak, die voorseil gehys en die skip na die strand gerig (Hand. 27:40 KJV).
Daar is 'n interessante en subtiele punt in die Griekse teks wat nie in die King James Version verskyn nie. Die oorspronklike taal sê eintlik dat hulle die bands van die roere” (meervoud – sien ASV). Dit is ongelooflik presies, want in die ou tyd het skepe eintlik twee roere gehad, nie een roer soos met moderne vaartuie nie. In 1969 is 'n onderdompelde ou skip in die Middellandse See voor die kus van Ciprus ontdek. 'N Ondersoek na die ruïnes het getuig van dubbele roeispane waarmee die boot gestuur is (sien National Geographic, November 1974), en toon dus die merkwaardige akkuraatheid van die Luke ’s -rekord.
Die Bybel kan histories, geografies, wetenskaplik, ens. Getoets word, en dit slaag altyd die toets. Die ongelooflike akkuraatheid daarvan kan slegs verklaar word in die lig van sy goddelike inspirasie.
Vir verdere voorbeelde, sien ons boek, Versterk u geloof in 'n tyd van twyfel.
Die historiese betroubaarheid van die evangelies
Skeptici kritiseer die Evangelies, die eerste vier boeke van die Nuwe Testament, as legendaries van aard eerder as histories. Hulle wys op beweerde teenstrydighede tussen Matteus, Markus, Lukas en Johannes. Hulle hou ook vol dat die Evangelies eeue na die leeftyd van die ooggetuies geskryf is. Die laat datum van die geskrifte het toegelaat dat legendes en oordrywings vermeerder het, sê hulle.
Is die Evangelies histories of mitologies?
Die eerste uitdaging om aan te spreek is hoe om die verskille tussen die vier Evangelies in ag te neem. Hulle verskil in aard, inhoud en feite wat hulle insluit of uitsluit. Die rede vir die variasies is dat elke outeur aan 'n ander gehoor en vanuit sy eie unieke perspektief geskryf het. Matteus het aan 'n Joodse gehoor geskryf om aan hulle te bewys dat Jesus inderdaad hulle Messias is. Daarom bevat Matteus baie van die leringe van Christus en verwys hy baie na Ou -Testamentiese profesieë. Markus het aan 'n Griekse of nie -Joodse gehoor geskryf om te bewys dat Jesus die Seun van God is. Daarom voer hy sy saak aan deur te fokus op die gebeure van Christus se lewe. Sy evangelie beweeg baie vinnig van die een gebeurtenis na die ander, en demonstreer Christus se heerskappy oor die hele skepping. Lukas het geskryf om 'n akkurate historiese weergawe van Jesus se lewe te gee. Johannes het geskryf nadat hy jare lank besin het oor sy ontmoeting met Christus. Met hierdie insig het John aan die einde van sy lewe gaan sit en die mees teologiese van al die evangelies geskryf.
Ons moet 'n paar verskille tussen vier onafhanklike rekeninge verwag. As hulle identies was, sou ons die skrywers vermoed van samewerking met mekaar. As gevolg van hul verskille gee die vier Evangelies ons eintlik 'n vollediger en ryker beeld van Jesus.
Laat ek jou 'n voorbeeld gee. Stel jou voor dat vier mense 'n biografie oor jou lewe skryf: jou seun, jou pa, 'n medewerker en 'n goeie vriend. Hulle fokus elkeen op verskillende aspekte van u lewe en skryf vanuit 'n unieke perspektief. Die een skryf oor jou as ouer, 'n ander as 'n kind wat grootword, een as 'n professionele persoon en een as 'n portuur. Elkeen kan verskillende verhale insluit of dieselfde gebeurtenis vanuit 'n ander hoek sien, maar hulle verskille beteken nie dat hulle 'n fout maak nie. As ons al vier die rekeninge saamstel, kry ons 'n ryker beeld van u lewe en karakter. Dit is wat in die Evangelies afspeel.
Ons erken dus dat verskille nie noodwendig foute beteken nie. Skeptici maak al eeue lank bewerings van foute, maar die oorgrote meerderheid aanklagte is beantwoord. Nuwe -Testamentikus, dr Craig Blomberg, skryf: "Ten spyte van twee eeue se skeptiese aanslag, is dit regverdig om te sê dat al die beweerde teenstrydighede tussen die Evangelies ten minste aanneemlike resolusies gekry het." 1 'n Ander geleerde, Murray Harris, beklemtoon: "Selfs dan is die teenwoordigheid van teenstrydighede in omvangryke besonderhede geen bewys dat die sentrale feit onhistories is nie." 2 Die vier evangelies gee ons 'n aanvullende, nie 'n teenstrydige, weergawe.
Die datum van die geskrifte in die Nuwe Testament: interne getuienis
Kritici beweer dat die Evangelies eeue na die leeftyd van die ooggetuies geskryf is. Dit sou moontlik maak dat mites oor Jesus se lewe vermeerder. Is die Evangelies deur ooggetuies geskryf soos hulle beweer, of is dit eeue later geskryf? Dit blyk dat die historiese feite vir 'n datum uit die eerste eeu 'n sterk argument is.
Jesus se bediening was van 27 tot 30 nC. Bekende Nuwe -Testamentikus, F.F. Bruce, gee sterk bewyse dat die Nuwe Testament teen 100 nC voltooi is. 3 Die meeste geskrifte van die Nuwe -Testamentiese werke is twintig tot veertig jaar voor dit voltooi. Die Evangelies word tradisioneel soos volg gedateer: Markus is vermoedelik die eerste evangelie wat omstreeks 60 nC geskryf is. Matteus en Lukas volg en word tussen 60-70 nC geskryf. Johannes is die finale evangelie, geskryf tussen 90-100 nC.
Die interne bewyse ondersteun hierdie vroeë datums om verskeie redes. Die eerste drie Evangelies het geprofeteer dat die Jerusalem -tempel in die jaar 70 na Christus sou val. Die vervulling word egter nie genoem nie. Dit is vreemd dat hierdie drie Evangelies hierdie groot gebeurtenis voorspel, maar nie dat dit gebeur nie. Waarom noem hulle nie so 'n belangrike profetiese mylpaal nie? Die mees aanneemlike verklaring is dat dit nog nie plaasgevind het toe Matteus, Markus en Lukas geskryf is nie.
In die boek Handelinge speel die tempel 'n sentrale rol in die volk Israel. Lukas skryf asof die tempel 'n belangrike deel van die Joodse lewe is. Hy eindig ook Handelinge op 'n vreemde noot: Paul leef onder huisarres. Dit is vreemd dat Lukas nie die dood van sy twee hoofkarakters, Petrus en Paulus, opteken nie. Die mees aanneemlike rede hiervoor is dat Lukas in 64 na Christus klaar was met die skryf van Handelinge voor Petrus en Paulus se martelaarskap. gaan vooraf aan Lukas en maak die evangelie van Markus nog vroeër.
Laastens glo die meerderheid Nuwe-Testamentici dat Paulus se sendbriewe uit 48-60 nC geskryf is. Paulus se uiteensetting van die lewe van Jesus stem ooreen met dié van die Evangelies. 1 Korintiërs is een van die minste betwiste boeke oor die datering daarvan en die Pauliniese outeurskap. In hoofstuk 15 som Paulus die evangelie op en versterk die uitgangspunt dat dit dieselfde evangelie is wat deur die apostels verkondig is. Nog meer oortuigend is dat Paulus aanhaal uit Lukas se Evangelie in 1 Timoteus 5:18, wat ons toon dat Lukas se evangelie inderdaad in Paulus se leeftyd voltooi is. Dit sal die tyd van die voltooiing van die Evangelie van Lukas saam met Markus en Matteus versnel.
Die interne getuienis bied 'n sterk bewys van die vroeë datering van die Evangelies.
Die datum van die evangelies: eksterne getuienis
Is die Evangelies deur ooggetuies van die gebeure geskryf, of is dit eers eeue later opgeteken? Soos met die interne bewyse, ondersteun die eksterne bewyse ook 'n datum uit die eerste eeu.
Gelukkig het geleerdes uit die Nuwe Testament 'n enorme hoeveelheid antieke manuskripbewyse. Die dokumentêre bewyse vir die Nuwe Testament oortref enige ander werk van sy tyd. Ons het meer as 5000 manuskripte, en baie dateer binne 'n paar jaar van hul skrywers se lewens.
Hier is 'n paar belangrike dokumente. 'N Belangrike manuskrip is die Chester Beatty Papyri. Dit bevat die meeste N.T. geskrifte en dateer omstreeks 250 n.C.
Die Bodmer Papyri bevat die meeste van Johannes en dateer uit 200 nC. 'N Ander is die Rylands Papyri wat in Egipte gevind is, wat 'n fragment van Johannes bevat en dateer uit 130 na Christus. 130 omdat die evangelie nie net opgeskryf moes word nie, dit ook met die hand gekopieer moes word en van Griekeland na Egipte kon afkom. Aangesien die oorgrote meerderheid geleerdes dit eens is dat Johannes die laaste evangelie is, kan ons die datum van die eerste eeu saam met die ander drie met groter sekerheid bevestig.
'N Laaste bewys kom uit die Dead Sea Scrolls Cave 7. Jose Callahan het 'n fragment van die Markusevangelie ontdek en dateer dat dit in 50 nC geskryf is. Hy het ook fragmente van Handelinge en ander sendbriewe ontdek en dateer dat dit effens geskryf na 50 nC. 4
'N Ander bewyslyn is die geskrifte van die kerkvaders. Clement van Rome het 'n brief gestuur aan die Korintiese kerk in 95 n.C. waarin hy uit die Evangelies en ander gedeeltes van die N.T. Ignatius, biskop van Antiochië, het 'n brief voor sy martelaarskap in Rome in 115 nC geskryf, waarin al die Evangelies en ander N.T. letters. Polycarpus het in 120 na Christus aan die Filippense geskryf en uit die Evangelies en N.T. letters. Justinus Martyr (150 n.C.) haal Johannes aan. 3. Kerkvaders van die vroeë tweede eeu was bekend met die geskrifte van die apostel en het dit as geïnspireerde Skrif aangehaal.
Vroeë afsprake is belangrik om twee redes. Hoe nader 'n historiese rekord aan die datum van die gebeurtenis is, hoe meer waarskynlik is die rekord akkuraat. Deur vroeë afsprake kan ooggetuies nog lewe toe die Evangelies in omloop was om te bewys dat hulle akkuraat is. Die apostels doen dikwels 'n beroep op die getuie van die vyandige skare en wys ook op hulle kennis van die feite (Handelinge 2:22, 26:26). Die tyd is ook te kort vir legendes om te ontwikkel. Geskiedkundiges is dit eens dat dit ongeveer twee generasies, of tagtig jaar, duur voordat legendariese verslae hulself vestig.
Uit die getuienis kan ons aflei dat die Evangelies inderdaad geskryf is deur die skrywers aan wie hulle toegeskryf word.
Hoe betroubaar was die mondelinge tradisie?
Ek het voorheen die vroeë datering van die Evangelies verdedig. Ten spyte van hierdie vroeë datering, is daar 'n tydsverskil van 'n paar jaar tussen die hemelvaart van Jesus en die skryf van die Evangelies. Daar is 'n tydperk waartydens die evangelieverslae deur die dissipels tot die nagedagtenis gebring is en mondelings oorgedra is. Die vraag wat ons moet beantwoord, is: Is die mondelinge tradisie gememoriseer en akkuraat oorgedra? Skeptici beweer dat geheue en mondelinge oorlewering vir baie jare nie akkuraat rekords van persoon tot persoon kan bewaar nie.
Die bewyse toon dat mondelinge geheue in mondelinge kulture waar geheue al generasies lank opgelei is, groot hoeveelhede inligting akkuraat kan bewaar en deurgee. Deuteronomium 6: 4-9 onthul vir ons hoe belangrik mondelinge onderrig en geheue van goddelike onderrig in die Joodse kultuur beklemtoon is. Dit is 'n bekende feit dat die rabbi's die O.T. en 'n groot deel van die mondelinge wet is toegewy aan geheue. Die Jode het baie waarde geheg aan die memorisering van watter skrif ook al die geïnspireerde Skrif en die wysheid van God weerspieël. Ek studeer onder 'n Griekse professor wat die Evangelies volmaakte woord laat memoriseer het. In 'n kultuur waar dit toegepas is, was memoriseringsvaardighede ver gevorder in vergelyking met ons s'n vandag. Die Nuwe -Testamentikus Darrell Bock verklaar dat die Joodse kultuur 'n kultuur van herinnering was '. 5
Rainer Reisner bied ses belangrike redes aan waarom die mondelinge tradisie Jesus se leringe akkuraat bewaar het. 6 Eerstens gebruik Jesus die profete van die Ou Testamentiese profete om die woord van God te verkondig wat die behoud van geïnspireerde lering akkuraat vereis. Tweedens, sou Jesus se voorstellings van Homself as Messias die behoefte onder sy volgelinge versterk om sy woorde akkuraat te bewaar. Derdens gebruik negentig persent van Jesus se leerstellings en gesegdes mnemoniese metodes soortgelyk aan dié wat in die Hebreeuse poësie gebruik word. Vierdens, het Jesus sy dissipels opgelei om Sy lesse te leer selfs terwyl Hy op aarde was. Ten vyfde is Joodse seuns opgelei tot hulle twaalf was, so die dissipels het waarskynlik geweet hoe om te lees en skryf. Laastens, net soos die Joodse en Griekse leraars dissipels bymekaargemaak het, het Jesus syne bymekaargemaak en opgelei om na sy dood voort te gaan.
As 'n mens die leringe van Jesus bestudeer, besef jy dat sy leringe en illustrasies maklik is om te onthou. Mense regoor die wêreld herken onmiddellik die verhaal van die barmhartige Samaritaan, die verlore seun en die Onse Vader.
Ons weet ook dat die kerk die leer van Christus bewaar het in die vorm van gesange wat ook maklik was om te onthou. Paulus se opsomming van die evangelie in 1 Korintiërs 15 is 'n goeie voorbeeld hiervan.
Ons kan dan vertrou dat die mondelinge oorlewering die leringe en die gebeure van Jesus se lewe akkuraat bewaar het totdat dit net 'n paar jaar later neergeskryf is.
Die oordrag van die evangelie tekste
As ek met Moslems of Mormone praat, kom ons dikwels op 'n punt in die bespreking waar dit duidelik is dat die Bybel hulle standpunt weerspreek. Dit is dan wat hulle beweer, soos baie skeptici, doen dat die Bybel nie akkuraat oorgedra is nie en deur die kerk beskadig is. Het ons 'n akkurate kopie van die oorspronklike tekste met betrekking tot die Evangelies, of is dit beskadig?
Voorheen het ons getoon dat die Evangelies in die eerste eeu, binne die leeftyd van die ooggetuies, geskryf is. Hierdie ooggetuies, vriendelik sowel as vyandig, het die rekords deeglik ondersoek.
Die oorspronklike geskrifte was dus akkuraat. Ons het egter nie die oorspronklike manuskripte nie. Wat ons het, is afskrifte van afskrifte van afskrifte. Is dit akkuraat, of is daar met hulle gepeuter? Soos vroeër getoon, het ons 5000 Griekse manuskripte van die Nuwe Testament. As u die aanhalings van die kerkvaders, manuskripte uit ander vroeë vertalings soos die Latynse Vulgaat, die Ethiopiese teks en ander insluit, kom die totaal uit op meer as 24 000 antieke tekste. Met soveel antieke tekste, moet beduidende veranderinge maklik raakgesien word. Diegene wat die Nuwe Testament daarvan beskuldig dat hulle korrup is, het egter nie sulke bewyse gelewer nie. Dit is belangrik omdat dit maklik moet wees met soveel beskikbare manuskripte. Die waarheid is dat die groot aantal manuskripte die akkurate bewaring en oordrag van die Nuwe -Testamentiese geskrifte bevestig.
Alhoewel ons vertroue kan hê in 'n akkurate kopie, het ons wel tekstuele afwykings. Daar is 'n paar gedeeltes met verskillende metings waarvan ons nie seker is nie. Die verskille is egter gering en beïnvloed geen belangrike teologiese leerstellings nie. Die meeste het te doen met sinstruktuur, woordeskat en grammatika. Dit beïnvloed geensins die belangrikste leerstellings nie.
Hier is 'n voorbeeld. In ons Bybels word daar oor Markus 16: 9-20 gedebatteer of dit deel was van die oorspronklike geskrifte. Alhoewel ek persoonlik nie glo dat hierdie gedeelte deel was van die oorspronklike teks nie, beïnvloed dit nie die belangrikste onderrig van die Christendom nie. Dit sê dat Christus opgewek is, aan die dissipels verskyn het en hulle die opdrag gegee het om die evangelie te verkondig. Dit word elders geleer.
Die ander teenstrydighede is soortgelyk van aard. Griekse geleerdes stem saam dat ons 'n kopie het wat baie akkuraat is by die oorspronklike. Westcott en Hort verklaar dat ons 'n afskrif van 98,33% van die oorspronklike het. 7 A.T. Robertson het 'n syfer van 99% akkuraatheid aan die oorspronklike gegee. 8 Soos die historikus sir Fredric Kenyon ons verseker: "Die laaste grondslag vir enige twyfel dat die Skrif wesenlik tot ons gekom het soos dit geskryf is, is nou verwyder. Sowel die egtheid as die algemene integriteit van die boeke van die Nuwe Testament kan as finaal beskou word. " 9
Maak wonderwerke die evangelies in diskrediet?
Skeptici bevraagteken die akkuraatheid van die Evangelies as gevolg van die wonderwerke. Dit is egter 'n kwessie van wêreldbeskouings. Diegene wat 'n naturalistiese wêreldbeskouing hou, glo nie dat 'n almagtige skepper bestaan nie. Al wat bestaan is energie en materie. Daarom is wonderwerke onmoontlik. Hulle gevolgtrekking is dus dat die wonderberigte in die Evangelies oordrywings of mites is.
Diegene wat 'n teïstiese wêreldbeskouing het, kan wonderwerke aanvaar in die lig van ons begrip van God en Christus. God kan in tyd en ruimte ingryp en die natuurlike reëlmatighede van die natuur verander, net soos eindige mense op kleiner beperkte maniere dit kan doen. As Jesus die Seun van God is, kan ons verwag dat Hy wonderwerke sal verrig om sy aansprake as goddelik te bevestig. Maar wêreldbeskouings is nie waar dit eindig nie. Ons moet ook die historiese feite goed bekyk.
Soos voorheen getoon, is die Evangelies deur ooggetuies geskryf oor die gebeure in die lewe van Christus. Vroeë afsprake toon dat ooggetuies lewendig was toe die Evangelies in omloop was en kon getuig van hul akkuraatheid. Apostels doen dikwels 'n beroep op die getuie van die vyandige skare en wys ook op hul kennis van die feite (Handelinge 2:22, Handelinge 26:26). As daar dus oordrewe verhale of verhale oor Christus was wat nie waar was nie, sou die ooggetuies die apostels se verslae maklik in diskrediet kon bring. Onthou, hulle het in die stede en gedurende die leeftyd van die ooggetuies in Israel begin preek. Die Jode was versigtig om akkurate historiese verslae op te teken. Baie vyande van die vroeë kerk het maniere gesoek om die apostels se lering in diskrediet te bring. As dit wat die apostels gesê het, nie waar was nie, sou die vyande vuil gewees het en sou die Evangelies nie veel geloofwaardigheid verdien het nie.
Die Evangelies
Die mondelinge tradisies in die kerk vorm die inhoud van die Evangelies, waarvan die vroegste boek Markus is, geskryf omstreeks 70 nC, 40 jaar na die dood van Jesus.
Daar word beweer dat daar moontlik 'n oorspronklike dokument van woorde van Jesus was, bekend as die Q -bron, wat aangepas is in die verhale van die Evangelies. Al vier die Evangelies is anoniem gepubliseer, maar historici meen dat die boeke die naam van Jesus se dissipels gekry het om direkte skakels na Jesus te gee om groter gesag aan hulle te verleen.
Matteus en Lukas was die volgende in die chronologie. Albei het Markus as verwysing gebruik, maar Matthew word beskou as 'n ander aparte bron, bekend as die M -bron, omdat dit 'n ander materiaal as Markus bevat. Beide boeke beklemtoon ook die bewys van Jesus ’ goddelikheid meer as wat Markus gedoen het.
Die Boek van Johannes, wat omstreeks 100 nC geskryf is, was die laaste van die vier en het 'n reputasie as vyandigheid teenoor Jesus en Joodse tydgenote.
Al vier die boeke dek die lewe van Jesus met baie ooreenkomste, maar soms teenstrydighede in hul voorstellings. Elkeen het 'n eie politieke en godsdienstige agenda wat verband hou met outeurskap.
Die boeke Matteus en Lukas bied byvoorbeeld verskillende weergawes van Jesus se geboorte en weerspreek almal oor die opstanding.
Tacitus verbind Jesus met sy teregstelling deur Pontius Pilatus.
'N Ander verslag van Jesus verskyn in Annale van die keiserlike Rome, 'n eerste-eeuse geskiedenis van die Romeinse Ryk wat omstreeks 116 nC geskryf is deur die Romeinse senator en historikus Tacitus. By die beskrywing van die verbranding van Rome in 64 nC noem Tacitus dat keiser Nero die persone wat algemeen Christene genoem word, valslik die skuld gegee het, wat gehaat is vir hul omvang. Christus, die stigter van die naam, is doodgemaak deur Pontius Pilatus, prokureur van Judea in die regering van Tiberius. ”
As Romeinse historikus het Tacitus geen Christelike vooroordele gehad in sy bespreking van die vervolging van Christene deur Nero nie, sê Ehrman. Net omtrent alles wat hy sê, val saam teen die staat, en 'n godsdienstige beweging van sy volgelinge het in sy nasleep ontstaan. ”
Toe Tacitus geskiedenis skryf, as hy die inligting as nie heeltemal betroubaar geag het nie, het hy gewoonlik 'n aanduiding daarvan vir sy lesers geskryf, en Mykytiuk sê dat hy die historiese waarde van die gedeelte aanvaar. �r is geen sodanige aanduiding van moontlike foute in die gedeelte wat Christus noem nie. ”
15 Historiese bewyse van die Bybel
Die Bybel is in wese 'n godsdienstige geskiedenis. Selfs diegene wat die Bybel geskryf het, het duidelik gemaak dat dit nie 'n sekulêre geskiedenis is nie, alhoewel daar na sekulêre gebeure verwys word. Dit is 'n boek oor God en sy verhouding met die mens. Dit kan nie logies bewys of ontken word nie. Dit is 'n geestelike saak.
Mense en gebeure wat in die Bybel genoem word, kan egter gevind word in die historiese geskrifte van ander nabygeleë lande. Ook historiese verslae van die ander Israelitiese nasies as die Bybel bewys dat die geskiedenis van die Bybel korrek is.
Die vroegste rekords van die Israeliete is op papirus geskryf, eerder as kleitablette wat destyds deur ander kulture gebruik is. Baie van die papirusse is vernietig. En tog bestaan daar bewys van Bybelse gebeure.
1. Na berig word, het die Smithsonian Department of Anthropology dit oor die Bybel gesê (met verwysing na geskiedenis, nie na geestelike leerstellings nie.)
'' N Groot deel van die Bybel, veral die historiese boeke van die ou testament, is net so akkurate historiese dokumente as wat ons uit die oudheid het en is in werklikheid meer akkuraat as baie van die Egiptiese, Mesopotamiese of Griekse geskiedenis. Hierdie Bybelse verslae kan en word gebruik, net soos ander ou dokumente in argeologiese werk. Oor die algemeen het historiese gebeurtenisse wat beskryf is, plaasgevind en die mense wat aangehaal is, het werklik bestaan. Dit wil nie sê dat die name van alle mense en plekke wat vandag genoem word, vandag geïdentifiseer kan word nie, of dat elke gebeurtenis soos in die historiese boeke berig presies gebeur het. ” (http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf.)
Hier is 'n deel van 'n brief van die National Geographic
Ek het u navrae na ons personeel -argeoloog, dr. George Stuart, verwys. Hy het gesê dat argeoloë die Bybel inderdaad 'n waardevolle naslaaninstrument vind en dit baie keer gebruik vir geografiese verhoudings, ou name en relatiewe chronologieë. Op die meegaande lys vind u baie artikels oor ontdekkings wat gebeure in die Bybel bespreek.
National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.
Historiese gebeure van Abraham tot Salomo.
2. In 1990 gebruik Frank Yurco, 'n egiptoloog van die Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, hiërogliewe leidrade van 'n monoliet bekend as die Merneptah Stele om figure in 'n Luxor -muurreliëf as ou Israeliete te identifiseer. Die stele self, gedateer tot 1207 v.C. vier 'n militêre oorwinning deur die farao Merneptah. 'Israel word verwoes', lui dit. Dit laat ons weet dat die Israeliete meer as 3000 jaar gelede 'n aparte volk was. (vir meer inligting oor die steleh)
3. Sommige historici dring daarop aan dat die Kanaäniete 'n sterwende kultuur was toe die Israeliete geleidelik ingetrek en hul lande oorgeneem het. Dit ondersteun eintlik die Bybel wat God vir die Israeliete sê
"En ek sal horings [wanhoop] voor u uit stuur, wat die Hewiete, die Kanaäniete en Hetiete voor u uit verdrywe. Ek sal hulle nie in een jaar voor u uit verdryf nie, sodat die land nie verwoes word en die die dier van die veld vermeerder teen jou. By min en klein sal Ek hulle voor jou uit verdryf totdat jy vermeerder word en die land beërwe. " Exodus 23: 28-30 King James Gemagtig
Omstanders van die Bybel beweer dat daar min bewys is van die gebruik van slawe in Egipte of die uittog, die verowering van die Kanaäniete deur die Israeliete of (voor 1993) van koning Dawid se bewind. Maar die afwesigheid van bewys is nie 'n bewys van afwesigheid nie. Dit verg slegs een vonds om die prentjie te verander.
4. Byvoorbeeld, tot 1993 was daar geen bewys van die bestaan van koning Dawid nie of selfs van Israel as 'n nasie voor Salomo. Toe vind argeoloë in 1993 'n bewys van koning Dawid se bestaan buite die Bybel. By 'n ou heuwel met die naam Tel Dan, in die noorde van Israel, is woorde wat in 'n stuk basalt gesny is, vertaal as 'Huis van Dawid' en 'Koning van Israel'. Dit het bewys dat David meer as net 'n legende was.
5. In 2005 het die Israeliese argeoloog Eilat Mazar koning David se paleis gevind wat op die Bybel staatmaak as een van haar vele hulpmiddels. Sy sê:
'Die wonderlike van die Bybel is dat ons baie keer sien dat dit baie akkuraat en soms ongelooflik akkuraat is.' (uit die gebruik van die Bybel as haar gids)
Vierde era: Historiese gebeure van Salomo tot aan die einde van die Ou Testament
6. RD Wilson wat “A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament” geskryf het, het daarop gewys dat die name van 29 konings uit tien nasies (Egipte, Assirië, Babilon en meer) nie net in die Bybel genoem word nie, maar ook op monumente van hulle eie tyd. Elke naam word in die Ou Testament getranslitereer presies soos dit op die argeologiese artefak verskyn - lettergreep vir lettergreep, medeklinker vir medeklinker. Die chronologiese volgorde van die konings is korrek.
7. John M. Lundquist skryf
'' 'N Belangrike voorbeeld van die bydrae wat antieke inskripsies tot ons begrip van die Ou Testament gemaak het, is die Moabitiese steen, ook bekend as die Mesha -inskripsie.
Bybelse verslag
Mesa, die koning van die Moabiete, die ver neefs van die Israeliete wat aan die oostekant van die Dooie See gewoon het, word in die derde hoofstuk van 2 Konings [2 Kon. 3] as 'n vasaal vir die koning van Israel, ongeveer 849 v.C. Met die dood van Agab het Mesha in opstand gekom teen hierdie verhouding. Dit het Agab se seun, Joram, aangespoor om die bondgenootskap van Josafat, die koning van Juda, en die koning van Edom aan te gaan in 'n militêre veldtog teen Mesa. Met behulp van profetiese advies van Elisa kon die alliansie 'n oorwinning behaal oor die Moabiete. Mesha het agter die mure van sy vesting, Kir-Hareseth, teruggetrek, en op een van hierdie mure het hy sy eersgebore seun as brandoffer geoffer om die toorn van sy god, Kamos, teen Johoram aan te roep weermag. Die Bybel vertel ons dat die Israeliete so verskrik was vir hierdie daad dat hulle teruggekeer het huis toe. (Sien 2 Kon. 3:27.)
This ends the biblical account of Mesha, and if it weren't for the discovery of the Moabite Stone in 1868 by a German missionary, the story would have ended there.
Moabite Record Confirming Biblical Account
The Moabite Stone is an inscription in the Moabite language, a Semitic language closely related to biblical Hebrew. The inscription, of about thirty-five lines, was chiseled into a piece of black basalt measuring about three feet tall by one-and-one-half feet wide. That inscription, dated approximately 830 B.C., was set up by King Mesha in a temple at Dhiban to commemorate his "victory" over the Israelites. The Moabite Stone, in fact, gives King Mesha's side of the story. As such it provides a rare glimpse from a genuinely ancient but non-biblical source of an incident in biblical history.
The overriding theme of the inscription is very familiar: that the deity, in this case Chemosh, guided Mesha in his trials and finally gave him victory. The inscription states that Chemosh had allowed King Omri of Israel to oppress Moab for many years because of the Moabites' sins. (See Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. Walter Beyerlin, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 237-40.) During this time, Omri and his followers had taken much land in Moab and fortified it. (The Bible itself does not mention these campaigns by northern kings-with the exception of the account already quoted from 2 Kgs. 3.) At that point, Chemosh turns his favor toward Mesha and instructs him to defeat the Israelites. Mesha follows instructions, defeats the Israelites, and then uses Israelite prisoners to make repairs on the temple of Chemosh at Dhiban.
From a historian's point of view, Mesha's account of his successful rebellion against Israelite domination can probably be given credibility. As we have already seen, the Israelite-Judahite-Edomite coalition against him in 849 B.C. was successfully rebuffed by the human sacrifice which Mesha offered to Chemosh on the wall of his citadel. (See 2 Kgs. 3.) What's more, if the date of 830 B.C. for the setting up of this monument is accurate, then Mesha's statement about the fate of the house of Omri would also be accurate, since we know that Omri's royal line was wiped out by Jehu in about 842 B.C. (See 2 Kgs. 9.) Thus, Mesha no doubt saw himself and his god, Chemosh, vindicated by events.
The fact that Israel's neighbors viewed their gods in the same light as Israel viewed the Lord, and the fact that certain biblical customs should also be found among some of these neighbors, should in no way disturb anyone. Perhaps the Moabites and others borrowed these customs from the Israelites, or, more probably, since the Moabites are descendants from Abraham's nephew Lot through the latter's daughter (see Gen. 19:37), there would be much in the way of religion and culture that they would share in common. One of the sobering facts that we learn from a study of the Bible during the period of the united and divided monarchies is that sometimes the worship of idols such as Chemosh appears to have been more popular among the Israelites than the worship of the Lord himself. (See 1 Kgs. 11:7 1 Kgs. 19:18 2 Kgs. 17 2 Kgs. 21 1 Ne. 1:19-20.) The Moabite Stone gives us a picture of such an idol as one of his native adherents would have viewed him.
Facts 8-11: Ancient Inscriptions confirming Assyrian Kings' Siege of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar's Conquest
There are a number of other ancient inscriptions that have provided valuable insights into biblical history from a non-biblical perspective. Among these are the Gezar Calendar, the Samaria Ostraca, the Siloam Inscription, the Lachish Letters, and numerous Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions. (These can be examined in translation, with reference to the originals, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard, 2nd ed., Princeton: Princeton University, 1955, pp. 320-24 3rd ed., 1969, pp. 653-62.) Among the most important of these are the royal inscriptions of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings. We have inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Sargon II and Sennacherib describing their sieges of Samaria in 721 and Jerusalem in 701, respectively, as well as inscriptions relating the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar's conquests of Jerusalem in the latter years of Judah's existence before the exile. (See Pritchard, 2nd ed., pp. 284-88 3rd ed., pp. 563-64.)
What value have such inscriptions added to our understanding of the Bible? In addition to providing new perspective, they "pinpoint events and . supply a wider view of the biblical past, discovering phenomena in ancient Israel not preserved in its literature." (See Gaalyahu Cornfeld, Archaeology of the Bible)"
From: Lundquist, John (August, 1983) The Value of New Textual Sources to the King James Bible.
The following information is taken from a site dedicated to discoveries made by archaeologists working in and around present day Jerusalem.
12. Ostraca (inscribed potsherds) Over 100 ostraca inscribed in biblical Hebrew (in paleo-Hebrew script) were found in the citadel of Arad. This is the largest and richest collection of inscriptions from the biblical period ever discovered in Israel. The letters are from all periods of the citadel's existence, but most date to the last decades of the kingdom of Judah. Dates and several names of places in the Negev are mentioned, including Be'er Sheva.
13. Among the personal names are those of the priestly families Pashur and Meremoth, both mentioned in the Bible. (Jeremiah 20:1 Ezra 8:33) Some of the letters were addressed to the commander of the citadel of Arad, Eliashiv ben Ashiyahu, and deal with the distribution of bread (flour), wine and oil to the soldiers serving in the fortresses of the Negev. Seals bearing the inscription "Eliashiv ben Ashiyahu" were also found.
Some of the commander's letters (probably "file" copies) were addressed to his superior and deal with the deteriorating security situation in the Negev. In one of them, he gives warning of an emergency and requests reinforcements to be sent to another citadel in the region to repulse an Edomite invasion. Also, in one of the letters, the "house of YHWH" is mentioned. For more information click here.
Fifth Era: Christ
What evidence do we have the he existed?
14. The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ.
15. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."
That there is any mention of Jesus at all is unususal. As far as the Roman world was concerned, Jesus was a nobody who live in an insignificant province, sentenced to death by a minor procurator.
To conclude, there is plenty of historical proof that the Bible is historically accurate, much more than can be contained in this article.
The Amazing Historical Accuracy of the Bible – Question 2
As we explore the subject of the historical accuracy of Scripture, we will discover it is of vital importance. The Christian faith is an historical faith–it records what God has done in history. This being the case, the historical accuracy of recorded events is of utmost importance. This is true for both the Old and New Testaments.
A number of observations need to be made:
1. The Old Testament Reveals God’s Mighty Works
The Lord often reminded the nation of Israel of His mighty power the deeds which He performed in their history. Thus, the historical accuracy of the Old Testament is of the utmost importance because the revelation of God to humanity was accomplished through His mighty words and deeds in history.
For example, we read in the Book of Exodus how God emphasized His bringing Israel out of Egypt:
The Lord is the One who brought Israel out of the slavery of Egypt. He did this through His miraculous power. The nation was continually urged to remember these mighty deeds of God.
In Second Kings, we again read of God reminding the people of how He delivered their nation from slavery. The Bible says:
The people were again reminded of this great event God performed in the past the miraculous exodus from Egypt.
The people were also expected to remember other Old Testament events. The prophet Micah records the Lord saying the following things to the people:
Again, God urges His people to remember His faithfulness in the past. These passages, along with many others, call attention to the fact that God intervened in history. This is the claim of the Old Testament the Living God has worked His plan in our world.
2. The New Testament: God Came to Our World at a Time in History
We find that the historical accuracy of certain events is also important in the New Testament. The Bible says that Jesus Christ, God the Son, came into our world. John wrote:
Die New Living Translation reads as follows:
For a limited period of time, God became a human being in the Person of Jesus Christ. He did this for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was to show humanity what God is like. The Bible says:
The New Testament records the highlights of the life and ministry of Jesus. It assumes that Jesus said the things attributed to Him as well as doing the things the Scripture records. Jesus made God known when He came to earth some two thousand years ago.
Thus, we find the writers of Scripture appealing time and time again to God working in actual historical events to testify to both His existence and power. The entire biblical revelation centers on what God has done in history. However, the truths taught in the Scriptures are only meaningful if the events actually happened. Therefore, the historical accuracy is of utmost importance.
Important Observations on the Historical Accuracy of Scripture
There are a number of important points that need to be made about the Bible and the subject of historical accuracy.
1. Historical Accuracy Is Unique to Judaism and Christianity
It must be stressed that historical reliability is unique to Judaism and Christianity. No other religion has any sort of historical basis on which their belief system rests—none of them! Contrary to all other religions, the events recorded in the Bible happened in real time history. The truth of the Christian faith is based upon the actual occurrence of these events that are recorded.
Therefore, the Scripture is unique in the sense that it is a reliable revelation of God in history.
2. Many of the Doctrines of Scripture Are Based upon Historical Events
There is something else. Many of the key doctrines of the Bible are based upon certain historical events. These include the virgin conception and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. These events must have literally occurred for the doctrines to be true. If the events did not happen as the Bible says they did then the teachings that come from these events cannot be true.
3. It Is Important to Understand What the Historical Events Mean
While it is important that the events recorded in the Bible actually occurred as the Scripture says they did, the correct reporting of these events is not enough in and of itself. We need more than the mere accurate recording of an event that took place in history—we need its meaning explained. Not only do we need to know what took place, we also need to know what it means. Scripture records the events plus the authoritative interpretation of these events. Events do not always carry their own interpretation with them. Why, for example, was the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth different from the crucifixion of anyone else? Scripture gives us both the event and the meaning.
The Scripture contains historical facts plus theological meaning—the facts must be accurate and the meaning must be true. It is the facts that are revealed, as well as the meaning of these facts, which give us a coherent understanding of God’s plan.
The Bible Must Be Able to Withstand Historical Investigation
We again emphasize that if the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be able to withstand the most thorough historical investigation. The Bible claims to be the record of God acting in history. The Bible, therefore, must be an accurate historical record of the past.
Thus, historical accuracy of Scripture is of vital importance, for it is the appeal made by the Bible itself to argue for its truthfulness.
Summary – Question 2 Is It Important That the Bible Is Historically Accurate?
The idea of the Bible being historically accurate is important for the following reason: The Scripture itself makes the claim that God has intervened in history. Many of these events have been recorded for us in Scripture.
The people were urged to remember what God had done for them in the past. They were to call to mind actual historical events that took place to remember God’s power and faithfulness. Also the central truth of the Christian faiththat God became a human—happened in history.
The historical accuracy of these claims demonstrates the truth of the Christian faith and its superiority over other religions that have no such verifiable evidence. This makes the historical accuracy of Scripture something that is of vital importance.
Non-Biblical Christian Sources
9. Clement of Rome (95-97 AD)
Clement was martyred in 98 AD for his willingness to spread his belief in Jesus to as many people as possible. The date of his death makes Clement an early source since he would have written his work before his death. This would give him credence as a first-hand account of early Christianity. Although his epistle did not make in into the canonical collection it was still collected by the early church fathers.
We find that Clement was well educated on Old Testament matters and was likewise familiar with the Pauline epistles. In his writings he alludes to Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, and other New Testament literature (Epistle to the Hebrews, and possible material from Acts, James, and I Peter). Nevertheless, in his letter to Corinth Clement confirms the ministry of the disciples and some of the basic aspects of early Christianity, he writes:
“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and being fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God will full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.”
Clement was, according to Tertullian and Jerome, personally ordained by Jesus’ most intimate disciple Peter of Peter. This, and due to its earliness, is why Clement can be seen as authoritative source for Jesus.
10. Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD +)
Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch reported, like Clement, to have been appointed to his position by Peter of whom he was a disciple, as well as also believed to be a disciple of Paul and John. Ignatius was arrested by the Romans and executed as a martyr in the arena around 100 AD. Ignatius, like Clement of Rome, writes extensively on the historical Jesus in Trallians, Smyrneans 1, en Magnesians xi.
In his letters he touches on the deity of Jesus (Brief aan die Efesiërs, hfst. 7), the Eucharist (Ignatius aan die Efesiërs 20:2, Brief aan die Smirnaeërs 6:2–7:1), the replacing of the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day (Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3), and emulates the Apostle Paul by quoting 1 Corinthians 1:19 in a letter to the Ephesians (Brief aan die Efesiërs 18).
It is possible, judging by Theodoret (393 – c. 458 AD), that Ignatius was appointed to the Antioch by Peter, the disciple. Likewise We are also aware that John Chrysostom (349 – 407 AD), the Archbishop of Constantinople, emphasizes the honor bestowed upon Ignatius as he personally received his dedication from the Apostles. One should remain aware that Theodoret & Chrysostom come onto the scene far later, which means that one could question their reliability concerning the link between Peter and Ignatius.
Even though his testimony would ultimately lead to his death, Ignatius was adamant about the things he witnessed. He reinforces early Christian beliefs in the letters he wrote while in prison, and refused to recant his faith in the face of death. There are many other church fathers we could look at.
Inhoud
Narrative Edit
Luke–Acts is a two-part historical account traditionally ascribed to Luke, who was believed to be a follower of Paul. Die skrywer van Luke–Acts noted that there were many accounts in circulation at the time of his writing, saying that these were eye-witness testimonies. He stated that he had investigated "everything from the beginning" and was editing the material into one account from the birth of Jesus to his own time. Like other historians of his time, [4] [5] [6] [7] he defined his actions by stating that the reader can rely on the "certainty" of the facts given. However, most scholars understand Luke–Acts to be in the tradition of Greek historiography. [8] [9] [10]
Use of sources Edit
It has been claimed that the author of Acts used the writings of Josephus (specifically "Antiquities of the Jews") as a historical source. [11] [12] The majority of scholars reject both this claim and the claim that Josephus borrowed from Acts, [13] [14] [15] arguing instead that Luke and Josephus drew on common traditions and historical sources. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
Several scholars have criticised the author's use of his source materials. For example, Richard Heard has written that, "in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling." [22] [ bladsy benodig ]
Textual traditions Edit
Like most New Testament books, there are differences between the earliest surviving manuscripts of Acts. In the case of Acts, however, the differences between the surviving manuscripts are more substantial than most. Arguably the two earliest versions of manuscripts are the Western text-type (as represented by the Codex Bezae) and the Alexandrian text-type (as represented by the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus which was not seen in Europe until 1859). The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 6.2-8.5% [23] more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts (depending on the definition of a variant). [3] : 5–6
Modern scholars consider that the shorter Alexandrian text is closer to the original, and the longer Western text is the result of later insertion of additional material into the text. [3] : 5–6
A third class of manuscripts, known as the Byzantine text-type, is often considered to have developed after the Western and Alexandrian types. While differing from both of the other types, the Byzantine type has more similarity to the Alexandrian than to the Western type. The extant manuscripts of this type date from the 5th century or later however, papyrus fragments show that this text-type may date as early as the Alexandrian or Western text-types. [24] : 45–48 The Byzantine text-type served as the basis for the 16th century Textus Receptus, produced by Erasmus, the first Greek-language printed edition of the New Testament. The Textus Receptus, in turn, served as the basis for the New Testament in the English-language King James Bible. Today, the Byzantine text-type is the subject of renewed interest as the possible original form of the text from which the Western and Alexandrian text-types were derived. [25] [ bladsy benodig ]
The debate on the historicity of Acts became most vehement between 1895 and 1915. [26] Ferdinand Christian Baur viewed it as unreliable, and mostly an effort to reconcile gentile and Jewish forms of Christianity. [3] : 10 Adolf von Harnack in particular was known for being very critical of the accuracy of Acts, though his allegations of its inaccuracies have been described as "exaggerated hypercriticism" by some. [27] Leading scholar and archaeologist of the time period, William Mitchell Ramsay, considered Acts to be remarkably reliable as a historical document. [28] Attitudes towards the historicity of Acts have ranged widely across scholarship in different countries. [29]
According to Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons, "Acts must be carefully sifted and mined for historical information." [3] : 10
Passages consistent with the historical background Edit
Acts contains some accurate details of 1st century society, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, [30] including:
- Inscriptions confirm that the city authorities in Thessalonica in the 1st century were called politarchs (Acts 17:6–8)
- According to inscriptions, grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35) and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea
- The passing remark of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius (Acts 18:2) is independently attested by Suetonius in Claudius 25 from Die twaalf keisers, Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. [31][32]
- Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31 and Acts 23:26)
- The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7–8 and Acts 18:12)
- Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple (as in Acts 21:27–36) see also Court of the Gentiles
- The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19:29–41
- Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antonia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jews to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31–37
Talbert concludes that the historical inaccuracies within Acts "are few and insignificant compared to the overwhelming congruence of Acts and its time [until AD 64] and place [Palestine and the wider Roman Empire]". [30] Talbert cautions nevertheless that "an exact description of the milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated". [33]
Whilst treating its description of the history of the early church skeptically, critical scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, and Martin Hengel still view Acts as containing valuable historically accurate accounts of the earliest Christians.
Lüdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christ's post-resurrection appearances, [34] the names of the early disciples, [35] women disciples, [36] and Judas Iscariot. [37] Wedderburn says the disciples indisputably believed Christ was truly raised. [38] Conzelmann dismisses an alleged contradiction between Acts 13:31 and Acts 1:3. [39] Hengel believes Acts was written early [40] by Luke as a partial eyewitness, [41] praising Luke's knowledge of Palestine, [42] and of Jewish customs in Acts 1:12. [43] With regard to Acts 1:15–26, Lüdemann is skeptical with regard to the appointment of Matthias, but not with regard to his historical existence. [44] Wedderburn rejects the theory that denies the historicity of the disciples, [45] [46] Conzelmann considers the upper room meeting a historical event Luke knew from tradition, [47] and Hengel considers ‘the Field of Blood’ to be an authentic historical name. [48]
Concerning Acts 2, Lüdemann considers the Pentecost gathering as very possible, [49] and the apostolic instruction to be historically credible. [50] Wedderburn acknowledges the possibility of a ‘mass ecstatic experience’, [51] and notes it is difficult to explain why early Christians later adopted this Jewish festival if there had not been an original Pentecost event as described in Acts. [52] He also holds the description of the early community in Acts 2 to be reliable. [53] [54]
Lüdemann views Acts 3:1–4:31 as historical. [55] Wedderburn notes what he sees as features of an idealized description, [56] but nevertheless cautions against dismissing the record as unhistorical. [57] Hengel likewise insists that Luke described genuine historical events, even if he has idealized them. [58] [59]
Wedderburn maintains the historicity of communal ownership among the early followers of Christ (Acts 4:32–37). [60] Conzelmann, though sceptical, believes Luke took his account of Acts 6:1–15 from a written record [61] more positively, Wedderburn defends the historicity of the account against scepticism. [62] Lüdemann considers the account to have a historical basis. [63]
Passages of disputed historical accuracy Edit
Acts 2:41 and 4:4 – Peter's addresses Edit
Acts 4:4 speaks of Peter addressing an audience, resulting in the number of Christian converts rising to 5,000 people. A Professor of the New Testament Robert M. Grant says "Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history […] His ‘statistics’ are impossible Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers [e.g. in Acts 2:41] without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25–30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand [e.g. Acts 4:4]." [64] However, as Professor I. Howard Marshall shows, the believers could have possibly come from other countries (see Acts 2: 9-10). In regards to being heard, recent history suggests that a crowd of thousands can be addressed, see for example Benjamin Franklin's account about George Whitefield. [65]
Acts 5:33–39: Theudas Edit
Acts 5:33–39 gives an account of speech by the 1st century Pharisee Gamaliel (d.
50ad), in which he refers to two first century movements. One of these was led by Theudas. [66] Afterwards another was led by Judas the Galilean. [67] Josephus placed Judas at the Census of Quirinius of the year 6 and Theudas under the procurator Fadus [68] in 44–46. Assuming Acts refers to the same Theudas as Josephus, two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement may come after the time when Gamaliel is speaking. It is possible that Theudas in Josephus is not the same one as in Acts, or that it is Josephus who has his dates confused. [69] The late 2nd-century writer Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus, [70] although it is possible that this simply draws on the account in Acts.
Acts 10:1: Roman troops in Caesarea Edit
Acts 10:1 speaks of a Roman Centurion called Cornelius belonging to the "Italian regiment" and stationed in Caesarea about 37 AD. Robert Grant claims that during the reign of Herod Agrippa, 41–44, no Roman troops were stationed in his territory. [71] Wedderburn likewise finds the narrative "historically suspect", [72] and in view of the lack of inscriptional and literary evidence corroborating Acts, historian de Blois suggests that the unit either did not exist or was a later unit which the author of Acts projected to an earlier time. [73]
Noting that the 'Italian regiment' is generally identified as cohors II Italica civium Romanorum, a unit whose presence in Judea is attested no earlier than AD 69, [74] historian E. Mary Smallwood observes that the events described from Acts 9:32 to chapter 11 may not be in chronological order with the rest of the chapter but actually take place after Agrippa's death in chapter 12, and that the "Italian regiment" may have been introduced to Caesarea as early as AD 44. [75] Wedderburn notes this suggestion of chronological re-arrangement, along with the suggestion that Cornelius lived in Caesarea away from his unit. [76] Historians such as Bond, [77] Speidel, [78] and Saddington, [79] see no difficulty in the record of Acts 10:1.
Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem Edit
The description of the 'Apostolic Council' in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2, [80] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account. [81] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged, [82] [83] [84] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century. [85] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event, [86] though this is sometimes expressed with caution. [87]
Acts 15:16–18: James' speech Edit
In Acts 15:16–18, James, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, gives a speech where he quotes scriptures from the Greek Septuagint (Amos 9:11–12). Some believe this is incongruous with the portrait of James as a Jewish leader who would presumably speak Aramaic, not Greek. For instance, Richard Pervo notes: "The scriptural citation strongly differs from the MT which has nothing to do with the inclusion of gentiles. This is the vital element in the citation and rules out the possibility that the historical James (who would not have cited the LXX) utilized the passage." [88]
A possible explanation is that the Septuagint translation better made James's point about the inclusion of Gentiles as the people of God. [89] Dr. John Barnett stated that "Many of the Jews in Jesus' day used the Septuagint as their Bible". [90] Although Aramaic was a major language of the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua franca of the area for 300 years.
Acts 21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian Edit
In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he was 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'sicarii' (literally: 'dagger-men') into the desert. In both The Jewish Wars [91] and Antiquities of the Jews, [92] Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives. Richard Pervo believes that this demonstrates that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptian. [93] [94]
Two early sources that mention the origins of Christianity are the Antiquities of the Jews by the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus, and the Kerkgeskiedenis of Eusebius. Josephus and Luke-Acts are thought to be approximately contemporaneous, around AD 90, and Eusebius wrote some two and a quarter centuries later.
