"... Our records of Christianity date from about a hundred years after the events they represent. It's a really long time. The degree of authority one can give to the evangelists about the life of Christ is relatively small."
My instant reaction: "How sad for him to be so tragically misinformed!" It struck me as similar to those Jews at the time of Christ who dismissed Jesus' Messianic credentials outright because they thought he had been born in Galilee, and they knew that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. [John 7:40-44] Their misinformation represented a fundamental error of factual knowledge that could easily have been corrected. (Jesus had been born in Bethlehem!)
There is actually only a 15 to 40 year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him. Turek and Geisler headline one section of their book: "Some New Testament Books were Penned in the 40s and 50s A.D., with Sources from the 30s (Only a Few Years After the Death of Jesus). (p. 241) They write:
"There is no doubt from anyone--including the most liberal of scholars--that Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth (which is in modern-day Greece) sometimes between 55 and 56.
In this letter, Paul speaks about moral problems in the church, and then proceeds to discuss controversies over tongues, prophecies, and the Lord's Supper. . . But the most significant aspect of this letter is that it contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. In the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul writes down the testimony he received from other and the testimony that was authenticated when Christ appeared to him: (I Cor. 15:3-8) . . .
Where did Paul get what he "received"? He probably received it from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). Why is this important? Because, as Gary Habermas points out, most scholars (even liberals) believe that this testimony was part of an early creed that dates right back to the Resurrection itself -- eighteen months to eight years after, but some say even earlier. There's no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. If there was ever a place that a legendary resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done so by parading Jesus' body around the city.
Moreover, notice that Paul cites fourteen eyewitnesses whose names are known: the twelve apostles, James, and Paul himself ("Cephas" is the Aramaic for Peter), and then references an appearance to more than 500 0thers at one time. Included in those groups was one skeptic, James, and one outright enemy, Paul himself. By naming so many people who could verify what Paul was saying, Paul was, in effect, challenging his Corinthian readers to check him out.. If the Resurrection had not occurred, why would Paul give such a list of supposed eyewitnesses? He would have immediately lost all credibility with his Corinthian readers by lying so blatantly.
In addition to 1 Corinthians, there are numerous other New Testament documents that were written in the 50s or earlier. Galatians (A.D. 48), 1 Thessalonians (50-54), and Romans (57-58) are all in this category. (p. 243)
Is a 15 to 40-year gap between the life of Christ and the writings about him so large as to render the testimony unreliable? Turek and Geisler respond:
Think about events that occurred 15 to 40 years ago. When historians write about those events, we don't say, "Oh, that's impossible! No one can remember events from that long ago!" Such skepticism is clearly unwarranted. Historians today write accurately about events in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s by consulting their own memories, those of other eyewitnesses, and any written sources from the time. (p. 244)
Frank and Turek elaborate the conversation further in various ways, but for now, let us turn our attention to Luke, the writer of the Book of Acts, and also the Gospel bearing his name. Turek and Geisler point out that
Luke, the medical doctor, meticulously records all kinds of details in Acts, which chronicles the early church. [They list 84 historically confirmed details later in the book]. Luke records the deaths of two Christian martyrs (Stephen, and James the brother of John), but his account ends with two of its primary leaders (Paul, and James the brother of Jesus) still living. Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome, and there's no mention of James having died. We know from Clement of Rome, writing in the late first century, and from other early church fathers, that Paul was executed sometime during the reign of Nero, which ended in A.D. 68. And we know from Josephus that James was killed in 62. So we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the book of Acts was written before 62. (p. 239-40)
What about the Gospel of Luke? Turek and Geisler point out:
If Acts was written by 62, then the Gospel of Luke was written before that. How do we know? Because Luke reminds the original recipient of Acts, Theophilus (who was probably an important Roman official), that he had written to him earlier. The first verse of Acts says, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach. . ." The "former book" must be the Gospel of Luke, because Luke addresses that to Theophilus as well (Luke 1:1-4).
How much earlier is Luke? It would seem reasonable to place Luke at or before A.D. 60. Why? Because 62 is the latest Acts was written, and there had to have been some time between Luke's first writing to Theophilus and his second. If Acts is no later than 62 (and quite possibly earlier), then Luke is realistically 60 or before." (p. 240)
What about Mark's Gospel?
If Luke was written by A.D. 60, then Mark must have been written in the mid-to-late 50s if not earlier. Why? Bcause Luke says that he got his facts by checking with eyewitness sources. (See luke 1:1-4) Most scholars believe Mark's Gospel was one of those eyewitness sources. . . But even if Mark is not before Luke, the very fact that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Luke is before 62 and probably before 60 means that we have meticulously recorded eyewitness testimony written within 254 or 30 years of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. This is far too early to be legendary. It also means that the eyewitness sources go back even earlier. [As we discussed above with reference to the Apostle Paul.) (p. 241)
Turek and Geisler utilize another heading: Most If Not all of These Books Were Written Before A.D. 70 (about 40 Years After the Death of Jesus). In this section, which actually precedes the increasingly focused and detailed sections elaborated above, they point out that the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and none of the gospels mention it!
Question: If you and your fellow-followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were destroyed in A.D. 70, aren't you going to at least mention that unprecedented national, human, economic, and religious tragedy somewhere in your writings, especially since this risen Jesus had predicted it? [e.g. Mark 13:2,30] Of course! Well, here's the problem for those who say the New Testament was written after 70 -- there's absolutely no mention of the fulfillment of this predicted tragedy anywhere in the New Testament documents. This means most, if not all, of the documents must have been written prior to 70.
Some may object, "That's an argument from silence, and that doesn't prove anything." But in fact it is not an argument from silence, for the New Testament documents speak of Jerusalem and the temple, or activities associated with them, as if they were still intact at the time of the writings. . . (p. 237-38)
There's more, but this should give pause to Salmon Rushdie and others who may be skeptical of the value of the New Testament writings. At least one might hope that be so.