New Testament not historical document

I am writing to correct Jack Grimes' claim that "the records of the New Testament, whatever you think of them theologically, are at least reliable as historical documents. The Gospels were written by first or second-hand witnesses, within the lifetimes of nearly everyone who saw Jesus die in Jerusalem" ("How to Kill Christianity," April 6).

Choosing whether or not to accept the events of the New Testament as fact is the prerogative of every Christian, but to describe the texts as 'historical documents' is simply wrong. To quote a statement by the Catholic Biblical Association Taskforce in 1976, "as has long been known, we do not have in the New Testament an exact or complete record of the ministry of Jesus... Material in the Gospels and Acts for example, transmitted orally for some time after the historical events it narrates, was already subjected to the process of selection and theological interpretation before and during its literary composition."

According to Frederick C. Grant in his book "The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth," the earliest Gospel is Mark, written in 68 CE. Luke and John, along with the Acts of the Apostles, weren't written until 95 CE -- sixty three years after Jesus' death, and hardly "within the lifetimes of nearly everyone who saw Jesus die." Matthew was composed even later, somewhere between the years 95 and 112.

I am not trying to deny the spiritual validity or the divine inspiration of these texts, as I said above, every Christian should define their own relationship with the Bible. Mr. Grimes' article was well argued and interesting, however, his statements on Biblical history merited a correction.



Melanie Clatanoff

LA '06