What interest does the New Testament have for modern historians?

Answer 1

A:Early historians believed the New Testament to be literally trure and therefore a good basis for understanding the history of the first century, just as they believed the Old Testament to be literally true and thus a good basis for understanding the history of earlier times. As they began to study the New Testament in greater detail, historians learnt that it was not literally true, but assumed it was substantially true. Most modern historians now recognise that there are sufficient concerns with the New Testament that it can not be used as a basis for understanding the history of the first century, unless corroborated by other, more reliable sources. At the same time. many historians are Christian and believe the teachings, ethic and moral of the New Testament to be true, regardless of its historicity.

Just as the gospels were seen as reports of events that occurred during the lifetime of Jesus, Acts of the Apostles was long considered to be a detailed, scholarly history of the early Church. However, the theologian Hans Joachim Schoeps writes (Das Judenchristentum) that Acts has been "believed much too readily." He says that in reality Acts is only a biased, retrospective view of Christian origins. Anyone used to evaluating texts critically has no choice but to rate it as a document of the second or even third Christian generation. Acts follows a clear didactic line and for this reason energetically cultivates the creation of legends and reshapes persons and events according to its own standards. This is not a description that would encourage a historian to look for nuggets of historical truth in Acts.

Interest in The Bible has been largely reversed for historians. Rather than being seen as a reliable basis for the study of ancient history, it is now of interest to test the biblical accounts against extra-biblical sources, to establish the extent to which the New Testament can be verified.