Historian's Rules #2 Early Sources

1. Definition

1.1. Primary Sources: A primary source is simply a source that comes from the period being studied. Mark Ward, Biblical Worldview: Creation, Fall, Redemption, ed. Mark L. Ward Jr. and Dennis Cone (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 2016), 370.

2. Scholarly Explanation

2.1. Historian's Prefer:Historians must begin by identifying sources relevant to their investigation. The historian will mine these for data, which will eventually be employed as evidence for a preferred hypothesis. Accordingly a discussion related to our primary literature is necessary. Obviously we will place a premium on the better sources. For example, the historian can assign no historical value to Charles Wesley’s 1739 hymn “Christ the Lord Is Risen Today” in an investigation of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. At best, this hymn would tell historians that the resurrection of Jesus was still held by some in the eighteenth century to be a historical event. We are looking for sources much earlier and more closely connected to the eyewitnesses. Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010), 200.

2.2. Carson:It is common knowledge that the comparative studies of oral tradition (e.g., on the Maori civilization) deal with periods of three hundred years or longer. By contrast, the Gospels were written within at most sixty years of the events they purport to describe. The effects of this restriction have not been adequately considered. Some dates offered for the Gospels are improbably late; but early or late, the Gospels stand in relation to the life of Christ more or less as we stand in relation to World War II or the Great Depression—not as we stand in relation to, say, the Restoration in Britain, the flourishing of the coureurs de bois in Canada, or the settling of New Amsterdam. There were witnesses still alive when the New Testament documents were written; but the way many form critics write one would think that all witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ had been mysteriously snatched away the moment after the Ascension, and a new group had to begin all over again.18 D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 124.

3. Scholarly Dissent

3.1. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholars asking how historically reliable the Gospels are first turned to source criticism (for more detailed discussion see Carson, Moo and Morris 1992:26–38; France 1985:34–38). Source criticism asks the question: What written sources might the author of a Gospel have used? Although various source theories have come and gone, most scholars today agree (though a significant and capable minority demur) that Matthew used Mark, Q (that is, another source shared by both Matthew and Luke) and some other material not employed by Mark or Luke. Scholars commonly call this view the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” Craig S. Keener, Matthew, vol. 1, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

3.2. Source Criticism: Conclusions Source criticism attempts to do three things: (1) detect the presence of a source, (2) determine the contents of the source, and (3) understand how the source was used. Source criticism seeks to deal seriously with the NT as a historical document. Its importance is obvious to anyone who is confronted with startling or conflicting information. When the reader of the NT encounters a problem passage or two conflicting accounts of one event, the quest for sources can often help clarify or explain the problem. Although most of our examples for source criticism have been taken from the Synoptic Gospels, this method is used throughout the NT. The relationship of 2 Peter and Jude, for example, has raised several source-critical questions not unlike those of the Synoptic Problem. The usefulness of source criticism is augmented by the historical methods of form criticism and redaction criticism. Charles B. Puskas and David Crump, An Introduction to the Gospels and Acts (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 55.

3.3. Rejoinder

3.3.1. SOURCE criticism was originally called “literary criticism,”12 but, as the name “source criticism” denotes more specifically, its concern is not with every literary aspect but mainly with the written sources underlying the biblical text. Source criticism came to classic expression in the work of Julius Wellhausen at the end of the nineteenth century. When source criticism can lay bare the documents an author had at his disposal, it provides an important service for determining the message the author (redactor) sought to bring, for it enables us to observe the deliberate changes made in the original documents. Hypotheses Unfortunately, the work of source criticism is often hypothetical, especially with respect to the sources of the Pentateuch. For, whereas New Testament source critics are at least able to exhibit a copy of Mark (which in its first edition as Ur-Markus was presumably a source for Matthew and Luke), Old Testament source critics have been unable to present any comparable evidence that their widely acclaimed sources such as J and E ever did exist as separate, written sources. Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis, for all its later modifications, has remained just that—a hypothesis. Consequently, there is little agreement among biblical scholars regarding underlying sources.13 Moreover, other hypotheses might account for the textual givens equally well or better.14 In any event, “much of the old source criticism and of the hypotheses it produced remains conjectural and problematic.”15 Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 51–52.

3.3.2. Carson: The modern notion of well-nigh hermetically sealed communities doing their own theology and touching up their own traditions in splendid isolation, all to produce some New Testament document by multiple authors, is gross exaggeration; and to the extent p 91 it reflects any truth at all, we must frankly admit, with Hengel,118 that we know virtually nothing of such communities. On the positive side, there is evidence that a beginning New Testament canon was recognized very early, during the fifties, when many eyewitnesses were still alive.119 This suggests greater agreement and harmony among the early Christians than is commonly affirmed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge, Scripture and Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 90–91.

4. Secular Historical Example

4.1. ME: Few, if any bona fide historians argue against existence of the Roman Empire. Although the very premise appears silly, given the apparent acceptance of whatever evidence is required for states and municipalities to teach Roman history in public schools, those justifications must outlive historicity of biblical studies. Nonetheless: " Sources The main sources for the historical reconstruction of the Roman Republic are ancient literary sources, archaeology, papyrology, inscriptions, and coinage. The chief literary sources for the period are Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Polybius. Livy’s history contained over 140 books or long sections, of which 35 remain. They cover the foundation of Rome up to 167 BC. In his Roman Antiquities, Dionysius covers the foundation of Rome up to the First Punic War. Only the first 11 of his 20 books remain, along with short excerpts of the rest. Polybius’ The Rise of the Roman Empire covers 118 years (264–146 BC, including the three Punic Wars. For a description of the sources these authors utilized, including the antiquarians and oral traditions, see Cornell, Beginnings, chapter one.)" John C. Johnson, “Rome, Republic of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

5. Biblical Historical Example Unrelated to Demon Existence or Activity

5.1. ME: Yet once again it is easy to see the Bible suffering far greater levels, types, and silos of criticism than is present in the presumption of innocence in secular history. Namely: "Many form critics made observations difficult to dispute, for example, that Jesus used teaching forms popular among his contemporaries (such as parables and witty sayings), and that early Christians transmitted Jesus’ sayings and deeds in forms used by other biographers and storytellers of their day. They also identified characteristic forms of various narrative units, such as controversy stories.203 Many form critics, however, speculated about the preaching settings of the various forms, opining that we know more about the preaching communities (though they are not explicitly mentioned in our sources) than about Jesus (the subject of the sources)! In a post-Schweitzer period of skepticism about the historical Jesus, Bultmann and many other New Testament scholars focused on the early communities that transmitted reports about Jesus, which they thought might prove more fruitful historically. But this approach has proved ironic, for we in fact know far less about the earliest transmitting communities than we know about the historical Jesus.204 If pioneers in any discipline tend to exaggerate their discipline’s importance, such early form critics were no doubt among them! Some form critics started with skeptical presuppositions and consequently produced studies with predictably skeptical conclusions (Bultmann being the best-known example);205 others started with less skeptical premises and accepted much more of the material as authentic to Jesus.206 Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 154.

5.2. Advocates of robust biblical historicity often express concern that critics of this view act from partisan purposes, and should instead treat biblical testimony as innocent until and unless it can be demonstrated otherwise– virtually an impossible task in light of the exiguity of the evidence. These claims are seldom undergirded by a canvas of extra-biblical materials and even then, never beyond the Ancient Near East. Draws a small sample of examples from a variety of times and places to argue that the incidence of error, fraud, and misplaced trust is well beyond the point that would justify this deferential treatment. Urges those who would too readily accept the reliability of the biblical account of early Israel to canvass more widely before committing themselves. In Good Company: Problematic Sources and Biblical Historicity Henige, David. “In Good Company: Problematic Sources and Biblical Historicity.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2005, Vol. 30 (1), pp: 29–47. ISSN: 0309–0892

5.3. Instead, consider scholarly acceptance of _________ and _______ who are deemed reliable for a secular audience to to judge as having sufficient authoritative gravitas in order to convey the veracity of Roman history against the Apostle Paul: Despite the many unanswered questions about Paul (that make him an enigmatic figure), he is the fulfillment of a historian of antiquity’s dream. This is because so many good sources are available (Paul’s own letters), because a useful contemporary secondary source is also available (the Acts of the Apostles), and because the manuscript sources for both are quite early. First, there are early copies (of copies?) of Paul’s original letters that have survived and are safely housed in museums around the world. Furthermore, as well as their earliness,5 the number and wide geographic distribution of editions of the whole NT6 mean that textual critics are able to reconstitute versions of Paul’s original texts that are for practical purposes what Paul actually wrote. Disputed readings of Paul’s texts are minimal and are usually limited to isolated words.7 As well, the next wave of Christian writers (in the early second century) quotes extensively from Paul and provides a further check alongside his manuscripts. For example, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, wrote a short letter to the Philippians circa 110 and quoted from or alluded to ten of Paul’s thirteen letters (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy).8 The integrity of Paul’s letters, based on the earliness and number of manuscripts and patristic citations, gives historians good grounds for their study of Paul.9 Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus, vol. 2, After Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 3.