DAWKINS v F.F. BRUCE
For those who do not know of the late F. F. Bruce just click on his name to link to Wikipedia. In The God Delusion Dawkins sheds a great amount of now redundant 19th Century darkness on the New Testament. As we read on p. 92-3: “Ever since the 19th century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not a reliable account of what happened in the history of the real world. All were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mentions none of the alleged facts of Jesus life. All were copied, and recopied, through many ‘Chinese Whispers generations' (see Ch.5) by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas.”
The renowned New Testament scholar, F. F. Bruce, has shed a great amount of 20th Century light on this debate that tells a much different story, as does Sir Frederick Kenyon. When the paragraph below refers to the middle of ‘the last century' one must keep in mind Bruce was writing from the 20th century – he died in September 1990. Remember it is Dawkins' critics who accused him of being “so 19th Century,” which appears to amuse instead of embarrass him.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: THEIR DATE AND ATTESTATION by F.F. Bruce
“About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a first century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.”
“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.” To Read More . . .
Revised 22/08/07
