Meaning: The quote by Josh McDowell addresses the historical significance of the New Testament in providing information on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It also acknowledges the skepticism and criticism that the biblical documents faced during the 19th century. McDowell is a Christian apologist and writer known for his works defending the historical reliability of the Bible, and this quote reflects his perspective on the importance of the New Testament as a primary historical source.

The New Testament, the second major division of the Christian Bible, consists of 27 books that recount the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as well as the early Christian church. The resurrection of Jesus is a central and foundational belief in Christianity, representing the triumph of life over death and the fulfillment of God's promises. As such, the New Testament accounts of the resurrection hold immense significance for Christian faith and theology.

However, as McDowell notes, the reliability of the New Testament documents, particularly regarding the resurrection, has been a subject of criticism and skepticism, especially during the 19th century. This period, often referred to as the "Age of Enlightenment," saw a rise in secularism, rationalism, and critical analysis of religious texts. Scholars and critics subjected the New Testament to historical and textual scrutiny, questioning its authorship, accuracy, and overall trustworthiness as a source of historical information.

One of the key areas of contention during the 19th century was the application of historical-critical methods to the New Testament. This involved examining the texts for discrepancies, contradictions, and potential biases, as well as evaluating their historical context and the reliability of the authors. Critics argued that the New Testament accounts, including those of the resurrection, were not objective historical records but rather theological narratives shaped by the beliefs and agendas of the early Christian communities.

These challenges to the reliability of the New Testament prompted responses from Christian scholars and apologists, such as McDowell, who sought to defend the historical authenticity of the biblical accounts. They engaged in extensive historical and textual analysis, as well as arguments based on philosophical and theological grounds, to counter the criticisms and reaffirm the credibility of the New Testament as a historical source.

One of the primary arguments in defense of the New Testament's reliability is the consistency and coherence of the resurrection accounts across the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Despite differences in details and perspectives, these accounts converge on the central narrative of Jesus' death, burial, and subsequent resurrection. Proponents of the New Testament's historical reliability point to this convergence as evidence of multiple independent testimonies supporting the core event of the resurrection.

Furthermore, proponents argue that the New Testament documents exhibit characteristics of eyewitness testimony and early oral tradition, providing a basis for their historical reliability. They contend that the Gospels and other New Testament writings were composed within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events they describe and circulated among communities that could have challenged any inaccuracies or fabrications.

In addition to internal evidence, defenders of the New Testament's historical reliability also appeal to external corroborating sources. They point to early non-Christian sources, such as the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus, which make reference to Jesus, his crucifixion, and the growth of the early Christian movement. While these references do not directly attest to the resurrection, they are seen as supporting the broader historical context in which the New Testament events took place.

Ultimately, the quote by Josh McDowell encapsulates the ongoing debate surrounding the New Testament as a historical source, particularly in relation to the resurrection. It reflects the tensions between skepticism and faith, historical criticism and apologetics, that have characterized discussions about the reliability of the biblical documents. The significance of the New Testament as a primary source for information on the resurrection continues to be a subject of scholarly inquiry and theological reflection within the broader context of Christian belief and historical study.

In conclusion, while the 19th-century criticisms of the New Testament's reliability raised significant challenges, subsequent scholarship and apologetic efforts have sought to provide thorough and reasoned defenses of its historical authenticity. The quote by Josh McDowell serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of the New Testament as a primary source for understanding the resurrection and the ongoing dialogue surrounding its reliability in historical and theological contexts.

Overall, the quote by Josh McDowell highlights the enduring significance of the New Testament as a primary historical source for information on the resurrection, as well as the challenges and criticisms it has faced throughout history. It underscores the ongoing debates and defenses of the reliability of the biblical documents, reflecting the intersection of historical inquiry, faith, and scholarship in the study of Christianity's foundational beliefs.