The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Rating:
Summary: good book
Review: Bruce is one of the most important new testament scholars. His book contains valuable information, but it is a little dated. For example, Bruce doesn't think it reasonable to date Mark any further back than 65 a.d., but some scholars now have argued that perhaps it could go back as far as 50 a.d. based on internal evidence in the gospels and Acts. (Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the mini-apocrypha in Mark 13 and Daniel 9:24-26? Perhaps even atheist scholars could accept this early date) I was hoping for a more thorough treatment of the Pauline epistles and the rest of the new testament, but the focus is clearly on the gospels. Bruce does, however, include a chapter on the Pauline epistles. It's a good book, especially if you're not acquainted at all with new testament scholarship. A more thorough and up-to-date approach to some of the problems Bruce discusses can be found in "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" by Craig Blomberg, who also discusses the rest of the new testament briefly.

Rating:
Summary: an arc of fire
Review: Some honest person needs to write a spiritual biography of F. F. Bruce. He was a brilliant young man who grew up in the Plymouth Brethren, the fundamentalist "pre-mil" movement organized (if that is the word) by John Darby in the early nineteenth century. By the time of Bruce's birth in 1910, the modern approach to Biblical studies had entrenched itself as the regnant force in all the major seminaries and universities in the UK. The mainline Protestant denominations were also being challenged and transformed by the advancing criticism. Fundamentalist movements of the Darby stripe had become increasingly marginalized, disenfranchised, ridiculed. Over the first thirty years of the 20th century, the cleavage between traditional interpretations and modern learning had become insurmountable.

But you couldn't tell that to young Frederick Bruce. At a time when traditional believers were in retreat, weakly defensive, apologetic in that word's worst connotation, tending to unstable bravado, and lamenting their seemingly inexorable loss of ground and talent to the other side, Bruce positioned himself in the gap, determined to ingest all of modern scholarship from archaeology to Aramaic, embrace the Enlightenment ideal of learning (open, reasoned, non-obscurationist), weigh and analyze each argument and position down to the most technical detail, and become a respected, contributing member of the community of (infidel) academics -- all the while deflecting the advance of modernism, reclaiming large swaths of territory for believers, presenting himself as a pattern for other young believing scholars, and, in his person, being both the polite and pious young Christian and the quintessential British scholar-gentleman. In other words, young Fred had a grand notion of "F. F. Bruce" which he willed into being by sheer energy, determination, hard work, and devout faith -- a romantic act of self-creation as monumental as that of Jay Gatsby. Here was a young man who dreamed dreams, saw visions. Bruce would be a pedant-conquistador, a great white hope, a local-boy-made-good, a sheep among wolves (wise as a serpent, innocent as a dove), heroic and vast, a fortress and a haven.

Bruce describes this book (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable) in the preface as his "literary firstborn", and on every page one can sense his own sense of mission and growing powers. Written in his late twenties and early thirties, the book exhibits that "native hue of resolution" which has not yet been sicklied o'er by the pale cast of thought. But (as Joseph Heller might say) something happened to Bruce between 1943 and 1981, when he wrote in the preface to the sixth edition these haunting words: "... the book still helps to serve the purpose for which is was written. It is, I am sure, a better book for that purpose than any that I could write today..." In that statement a profoundly painful kind of confession is being made: at the age of 70, Bruce no longer was at ease or in tune with his earlier approach and conclusions.

But (but!) this could only be confessed _sotto voce_ because of his persona, the fusion that he promised to embody between scholarly credentials and a healthy confession. In public he had to maintain the on-going program he had set out for himself, and, in his writings and lecturing, to draw a veil over the ulcerated places in his faith. As his career progressed, this led to increasingly bland results; his works tended to mealy-mouthedness, aversions from prickly implications, sleights-of-hand to distract the reader, a lack of engagement. At crucial points in the narratives of the middle and later books (all of which continued to be touted as "conservative scholarship"), one can palpably detect the absence of some expected affirmation; it's like suddenly encountering a pocket of vacuum while walking through a windy corridor. And the affirmations that remain seem strained and solitary, too tentative and carefully ratiocinated to be wholly heart-felt -- at least not with the whole-heartedness that characterizes this, his first book.

And so the game begins: who can scour Bruce's large oeuvre and find all of those hints of what he lost? And what did he lose that he never gave indication of? What sort of personal stance did he take to the potential or real dishonesty of his position? Were there emotional shocks, private tears, months or years of cognitive dissonance? Did he harbor any secret sourness toward his many admirers? How did all of this affect his relationship to the Brethren (a very conservative group that was sure to take note of any minor deviations by one of their own)? Who (if any one or more) knew him well enough to tell the whole story; and how much did he let on, even in private? And will anyone come forward in time who is qualified and willing to write the kind of biography that Bruce's life calls for?

The breadth and depth of what he was trying to achieve and the respect (and sheer gratitude) that he engendered among evangelicals are the dramatic engines of this story. In broad outline it seems to shape up as the tale of a man who tried to serve two masters and pleased only one, or neither. Or, in the words of the Jackson Browne song: "...he started out so young and strong, only to surrender. Are you there? Say a prayer for the Pretender."

Rating:
Summary: New Testament is historical; good introduction to evidence
Review: This book deals with the question of whether the events recorded in it are historical (i.e. did they actually happen)? As such, the primary focus of the book is on the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and Acts (tells the first 30 or so years of Christianity). This book does not address the existence of God, evolution or other apologetic topics; it deals specifically with the New Testament from the perspective of a historian.

Bruce starts the book with an Introduction, which shows that Christianity depends on certain historical events; it is not an ethical system or a metaphysical system first. It is the Gospel; that Jesus was born, did and said certain things, died and was resurrected.

Often when one reads about the evidence for the New Testament, it is very general. In this book, that is not the case. For example, in the chapter, "The Writings of Luke," Bruce mentions how Luke knew specific titles of Roman officials and why this is significant. Bruce also examines the Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) evidence regarding early Christianity and Jesus. He cites Tacitus, Suetonius and a letter of Pliny the Younger. In the chapter on Early Jewish Writings, Bruce examines what little the Talmud says about Jesus and then goes into more depth about Flavius Josephus; Bruce investigates the idea that Christians have edited Josephus. The chapter, "More Archaeological Evidence," was probably the most interesting chapter for me in this book. It discusses specific finds that have a bearing on the New Testament and I had not previously encountered most of them in other apologetic works. Bruce does note one of the difficulties of finding New Testament Jerusalem sites. The Romans destroyed the city in 70 A.D. and a pagan city was rebuilt in its place in 135 A.D.; so it is surprising that anything is found.

Bruce also discusses the evidence regarding what happened in Acts 14:12 where the people of Lystra wrongly think that Paul and Barnabus are the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes. Bruce discusses the background to this and puts this curious event in its proper historical context. At the close of the chapter, Bruce very briefly looks at the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" and says it shows Gnostic influence but that the reader should look to other works for a discussion and evaluation.

Bruce, of course, deals with the Gospels at great length. I found this section the most difficult to go through; it just seemed very boring to read about the textual history of the Gospels. He does cover the Synoptic Problem and the Gospel of John as well. I think Bruce also makes a good point with his chapter about the Apostle Paul; several details about Jesus are known from Paul's writings which are independent, earlier and in agreement with the Gospels (e.g. Jesus is a descendent of David, was betrayed, endured the Roman punishment of crucifixion and instituted a memorial meal of bread and wine etc..).

The one drawback with reprinting a book originally published in 1943 is that many of the works that Bruce cites or footnotes are old. There are many works quoted from that were published from 1900-1950 and these books are difficult to look up if you want further information. However, Bruce partially makes up for this with his "Suggestions for Further Reading," at the end of the book which has works published in the 1960's-1970's.

I would recommend this book to someone who has the interest and patience to get into the New Testament and history; I don't think I would call it a popular level work but if you want information about the New Testament, this 12

Rating:
Summary: Compelling Argument for the NT's Historicity
Review: This book is a fantastic guide for any person, Christian or otherwise, who would like to understand the level of historical accuracy that can be found in the New Testament documents. In that Christianity is a religion whose truth claims are allegedly rooted in historical fact, it is key that the works through which we read of those "facts" be considered reliable. Bruce does a great job of doing just that. No historical account, regardless of reliability, can prove miraculous events. However, Bruce argues, if a work can be proven to be historically and culturally accurate with respect to most of its content, that document then becomes-on the whole-more compelling. Any historian would then need to take more seriously the author's questionable claims such as the miracles, and Christ as God and savior of humanity. For if an author can be shown to be reliable in all other aspects of his work, why should he lie with respect to the documentation of miracles? This line of reasoning, and many other arguments, make Bruce's short book a compelling read for anybody interested in this topic.

Several sections of this book stand out. Bruce provides an introductory discussion regarding how historians have arrived at different dates for the original writing of the NT books. That particular chapter thus demonstrates how soon after the actual events of the NT that those events were actually captured in written form. Also, he briefly explains how the different NT books came to be "canonized" during the first three centuries the Christian Church. Throughout the rest of this book, Bruce provides internal and external evidence that point to the historical reliability of the NT. Perhaps most impressive is the fact that Bruce does not try to convince his readers that Christianity is true; that is not his goal. It is only his aim to demonstrate that the NT documents, which themselves assert Christianity's truth claims, are as historically reliable as any documents of antiquity. In fact, based on the guidelines that historians use to determine historicity, the NT books can be considered much more reliable than ALL other documents of antiquity. That being the case, it then is up to the reader of the NT to determine if they will choose to believe or disbelieve the truth claims that the authors of the NT assert.

The objectivity with which Bruce approaches this book makes it a must read for Christians who want to better understand the historical roots of their faith, and non-Christians who believe that the Bible is mere religious myth. Both groups of readers stand to have their minds opened by Bruce's careful scholarship.

Rating:
Summary: Trustworthy
Review: This is an elightening read. It has allowed me to have more confidence when I read the Christian Bible. I now feel confident that I can explain to interested others the basis for believing that the text we now have is the same message as preached by the first century Christians. Regardless of whether you believe what these people preached, there can be no doubt that we know what they preached after reading this book. Bruce (1910-1990) was for many years prior to his death the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester in England. Based on the claim that Chrisitanity is an historical revelation, he felt justified to look at the foundation documents from a standpoint of historical criticism. Perhaps it is impossible to prove beyond any doubt the authenticity of these documents. Bruce does show that "the grounds for accepting the New Testament as trustworthy compared favourably with the grounds on which classical students accepted the authenticity and credibility of many ancient documents" If you are interested in fortifying your spiritual relationship by understanding the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel Tradition, this book will be interesting to you.

Rating:
Summary: Reliable Conservative Bible Scholar writes of NT Reliability
Review: With all the press the historical critical people get these days, it is so good to have such as Bruce to offer as a scholarly option.

This learned man writes of the NT Canon, how it came it be, on what basis and by whom.

What Bruce outlines the rest of the way is not the faith in what the NT documents proclaim, but rather the historicity of the documents themselves.

Here is where prejudice plays in for too many of our time. The NT documents themselves are very historically reliable. More so, as Bruce points out, than many every learned person would not fail to believe in, such as Julius Caesar, etc. Using these same historicity standards, Bruce debunks such myths and presupposed opposition.

Believing them as personal truth is one thing; to deny or change their historicity, low down scholarly dishonesty. Nice intro to the subject; serious students will want to go on into the isagogics of each book. Valuable to have in one's library!