The Christian church has always been built upon the foundation of faith in the historical Jesus who is revealed by the historical New Testament documents. It is of utmost importance that these documents show themselves to be trustworthy and reliable since they are the primary documentary sources substantiating the object of the Christian faith, who is Jesus Christ. Unlike other religious systems which simply express a code of ethic, morality, and philosophical ideas, the Bible claims to be God's divine revelation for all of mankind and it verifies its claims through historical evidence. As philosopher F.F. Bruce notes, "And this Good News is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how the world's redemption God entered into history, the Eternal came into time, the Kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus the Christ." Given the extraordinary historical events that the Bible records, it is crucial to determine two things: 1.The reliability of the New Testament documents and 2. The reliability of the New Testament witnesses. If we cannot establish the reliability of these sources, then we have no objective way to evaluate the historical sayings, deeds, and claims of Jesus and his disciples. In this study I will demonstrate that we do have an abundance of historical evidence which establishes the reliability of the New Testament documents. I will apply three specific tests to establish the credibility of these documents: the Bibliographic Test, the Internal Evidence Test, and the External Evidence Test.
The Bibliographic Test
The integrity of the New Testament writings is substantiated through three key sources: The Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and the quotations of scripture by early Christian writers. The Greek manuscripts are by far the most important among these sources. Since we do not have the original documents, we need to examine the reliability of the textual transmission from the original to the existing copies. First, one of the most powerful evidences that help establish the credibility of the New Testament documents is the sheer multitude of manuscript copies that are on hand. According to apologist Norman Geisler, "Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament text is preserved in some 5,686 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second (possibly even the first) through the fifteenth centuries." To add to the Greek copies, there are over 9,000 various ancient translations in Latin, Arabic, and other languages. This totals to over 14,000 New Testament surviving copies. In contrast, Homer's Iliad has only 643 surviving copies which ranks a far behind second to the New Testament. Other ancient historical works can account for only a limited number of manuscript copies. As F.F. Bruce expounds, "For Caesar's Gallic War…only nine or ten are good…. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus only four and a half survive." It is clear that no other ancient work can even come close to the New Testament documents in regard to the quantity of manuscriptural evidence. As Bruce concludes, "And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt." In addition, the early church fathers of the second to fourth centuries compiled 36,289 quotations of the New Testament. If all of the copies of the manuscripts were to be lost, we could reconstruct the entire New Testament from these alone except for a mere eleven verses.
Second, the time gap between the dates of the original composition and the product of the manuscript copies is incredibly short. As a rule, the older the manuscript copy, the higher the credibility since it is closer to the original writing date. This assumes the likelihood of fewer errors by the copyist. As Dr. Geisler explains, "Most ancient books survive in manuscripts that were copied about 1000 years after they were composed. It is rare to have, as the Odyssey does, a copy made only 500 years after the original. Most of the New Testament is preserved in manuscripts less than two hundred years from the original…some books of the New Testament dating from little over one hundred years after their completion." In light of this evidence, former director of the British Museum, Sir Frederick Kenyon concludes, "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible…. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." Some critics have attempted to portray the New Testament copies as being full of errors and consequently as not being trustworthy. With the massive number of manuscripts, to be sure, there are some slight differences. However, these are not errors but rather they are variants. The vast majority of these variants are minor grammatical items. Geisler explains, "In fact, there are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of those are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are not really certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of faith…. We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it." With this high degree of accurate textual transmission, scholars conclude that the New Testament is more accurately preserved than any other work from the ancient world. Apologist John Ankerberg quotes from various respected scholars, "Hort's estimate of substantial variations for the New Testament is one-tenth of one percent, Abbot's estimate is one-fourth of one percent, and even Hort's figure including trivial variations is less than two percent." An issue of vital importance is the dating of when the New Testament documents were written. Radical scholars attempt to push back the writings to a late first century and even second century time frame. By promoting late dates, they can argue that the Bible was not written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to the events. Instead, they presuppose a naturalistic world view which denies the possibility of the supernatural. Consequently, the New Testament writers have actually created mythological stories rather than having reported historical events. However, the facts tell a different story. One of the important New Testament fragments which point to an early dating of the New Testament is the John Rylands Papyrus. It is the oldest undisputed manuscript which is dated from A.D. 117 to 138. Since it was found in Egypt, where it was probably copied, and the original composition was composed in Asia Minor; the original writings are most likely to be a first century work. This is due to the fact that the original text would have circulated for some reasonable period of time prior to that. In addition, the Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament writings including the Gospels and the book of Acts, and was written from 150 years after the completion of the New Testament. Sir Frederic Kenyon writes, "No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound." The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were both written by the same author, Luke the physician. As apologist Jon Buell explains, "There are serial salutations in Luke and Acts. Luke 1:3 is addressed to Theophilus, and in Acts 1:1 written by Luke, the author says, 'The first account I composed Theophilus about all that Jesus began to do and teach…'Thus the book of Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke." The book of Acts is generally accepted to have been written between A.D. 60 and 62. Roman historian Colin Hemer has given strong evidence for this early dating. Just to name a few: "1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. 2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66… 3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. 4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62…." Given this early date of 60 to 62 for the book of Acts, the Gospel of Luke was probably written around A.D. 60 or earlier. This would be only twenty-seven years after the death of Jesus, and within the lifetime of most of the eyewitnesses. In contrast to radical critics, it would be too short of a time for mythology to have developed. In addition, First Corinthians is generally accepted by even the most critical scholars to have been written around A.D. 55 to 56. That would place the writing of these documents, which testifies to the death and resurrection of Jesus, at only 22 to 23 years after the event. Second, it was written by an eyewitness to the resurrection, the Apostle Paul, who gave a list of over 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrection. With most eyewitnesses still being alive, the resurrection could have easily been refuted if it had not actually occurred. It would have been self-incriminating for Paul to have circulated such a document listing the eyewitnesses if the resurrection was a lie.
Even many liberal scholars have been compelled to place early dates on the New Testament writings in light of the evidence. Liberal critic John A. T. Robinson has given revised dates which place the entire New Testament as being written before A.D. 70. Robinson believes that one or two gospels may have been written within seven years after the crucifixion. As Norman Geisler comments, "Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testament documents beyond reasonable doubt."
Internal Evidence Test
Another way to examine the credibility of the Bible is to examine its internal consistency. Jesus referred to the Old Testament scripture as being the Word of God which is authoritative and inerrant. He stated that the Old Testament "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35 KJV). He also promised the same status for the New Testament as the Holy Spirit "will guide you (the apostles) into all truth" (John 16:13 KJV). The apostle Paul also proclaimed that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."(II Tim. 3:16 KJV). If the scripture is "God-breathed", then it must be inerrant since God cannot err and is the author of all truth. Since truth is what corresponds to reality, then all scripture must correspond with the true historical events as well as have consistency within itself. This leads to the question, "Are there any contradictions in the Bible?" At first glance, there appear to be various discrepancies in the Bible. However, upon close examination we find that these "mistakes" are in man's interpretation and not in the scripture itself. Respected Biblical scholar Gleason Archer comments, "As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself-or else by objective archaeological information." Some typical mistakes made by the critics are:
1. Taking the scriptural passage out of context.
2. Failing to interpret obscure passages in light of the clear passages.
3. Neglecting the intended literary genre being used such as metaphor, parable, or hyperbole and interpreting it in the "wooden literal sense".
4. Assuming that all differing testimonies are contradictory and mutually exclusive.
For example, it is possible to have two seperate eyewitnesses give testimonies that contain some differences but have no contradictions. Gleason archer concludes, "There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God."
External Evidence Test
The third test of the historicity of the New Testament deals with the examination of external sources. The purpose is to determine if outside historical sources validate or refute the internal historical claims of the New Testament. Do outside materials show the documents to be authentic, dependable, and without error? Some of the most credible sources that confirm the New Testament historicity come from ancient secular historians. The first-century Roman historian, Tacitus, gives a very in-depth account of the Fire of Rome and Nero's attempt to place the blame on the Christians. As F.F. Bruce notes regarding Tacitus' description of the Christians in his work "Roman Annals", "This is the first time that he has occasion to mention them, so he gives a brief account of their origin: 'They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out fresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things of the world collect and find a home."' This writing confirms the scripture showing that Christ, whom the Christians followed, was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. The "pernicious superstition" was probably a reference to the resurrection as Tacitus was a non-believer. The first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, has confirmed various New Testament accounts through his writings. There are two passages in his "Antiquities" that gives detailed verification of scripture. Regarding the first passage, apologist Josh McDowell expounds, "This passage, written in A.D. 93, confirms to New Testament reports that Jesus was a real person in the first century, that he was identified by others as the Christ, and that he had a brother named James who died a Martyr's death at the hands of the high priest, Albinus, and his Sanhedrin." The second passage gives added detail regarding the life and character of Jesus, as well as the miracles he performed including his death and resurrection. "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats….He was [the] Christ…he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." Another Roman Historian who affirms Jesus and events in scripture is Suetonius. He was the chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian who reigned between A.D. 117-138 and he gives two important references: The first is stated as follows: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus, he expelled them from the city." As apologist Gary Habermas expounds, "The translator notes that "Chrestus" is a variant spelling of "Christ"…and is virtually the same as Tacitus' Latin spelling. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots which broke out…during the year of 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city…. this statement has an interesting corroboration in Acts 18:2, which relates that Paul met a Jewish couple from Pontus named Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who recently left Italy because Claudius had demanded that all Jews leave Rome." The second reference is to the Christians and the torture that was brought upon them by Nero. "After the great fire of Rome….Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief." This passage parallels the statement by Tacitus in that it refers to the "mischievous" religious belief of the Christians. This verifies that the early followers of Christ were called Christians and thattheir beliefs were at odds with tradition.
Roman author and administrator, Pliny the Younger, gives much detailed information regarding the beliefs and worship practices of early Christians. In a letter written to Emperor Trajan around A.D. 112 he writes, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food-but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." This letter provides concrete proof that the early Christians sang hymns to Christ and that they worshiped him as God. It also verifies that they met on a certain day, held strong moral ethics, and practiced the breaking of bread together as recorded in Acts 2:42 and 46. In addition to these writings, there are many other non-Christian writings which confirm the historicity of the New Testament writings. Among some of these secular sources are the Jewish Talmud, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Emperor Trajan. Archaeology has also confirmed the extraordinary accuracy of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. The prominent Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck, made the following definitive statement, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." While critics throughout the last few centuries have attempted to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible, archaeological discoveries have continued to undermine the critics undue skepticism. As archaeologist W.F. Albright writes, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." He then goes on to write, "Archaeological discoveries of the past generation in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine have gone far to establish the uniqueness of early Christianity as an historical phenomenon." Josh McDowell points out that this archaeological evidence persuaded Sir William Ramsey to change his critical convictions about the historicity of Luke and come to the "conclusion that the Book of Acts was accurate in its description of the geography, antiquities, and the society of Asia Minor." In conclusion, classical historian, A.N. Sherwin-White, writes, "for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." An often overlooked area of external evidence which gives credibility to the testimony of the eyewitnesses is the manner in which they died. Each of the disciples believed that Jesus was the Son of God and they also claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Christ. If the resurrection didn't take place, then they would have known that the story was a lie. Yet eleven of these twelve disciples died martyrs' deaths for their very testimony about Jesus. They could have saved themselves simply by denying the events. As Josh McDowell points out, …a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth….It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie, knowing it was a lie." Lastly, the most powerful external evidence for the credibility of the New Testament also happens to be the crux of the Christian faith, and that is the empty Tomb. Not only is the tomb empty, but no one has ever found the body of Jesus. While over 500 people have claimed to have witnessed Christ in his resurrected body, not one person has ever witnessed the dead body of
Jesus Christ after the third day
Conclusion
By applying these three basic historical testing measures to the New Testament, we find that these documents prove themselves to be historically authentic and reliable. The Bibliographical Test determines that we have extant copies which equate to over 100 percent of the original text, the time gap between the dates of the original composition is so small that it is insignificant, and the accuracy of our copies is over 99 percent, more accurate than any other book from the ancient world. The original writings are also shown to have an early dating and were circulating during the lifetime of most of the eyewitnesses. The Internal Evidence Test establishes that the documents are internally consistent as evidenced by the examination of linguistics, science, archaeology, and the eyewitness testimonies.
Lastly, The External Evidence Test gives overwhelming verification of the New Testament historicity through numerous secular sources. These include writings from ancient historians and government officials, archaeological discoveries, science, as well as the transformed lives and subsequent deaths of Jesus' disciples. The final and undeniable mark of authenticity the New Testament is the missing body of the resurrected Christ.
F.F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 12.
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 532.
Bruce, 20.
Ibid, 19.
Geisler, 532.
Frederick Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper and Row, 1940), 288-89.
Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 160.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Ready With an Answer (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997), 356.
Frederick Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship (London: John Murray, 1948), 20.
Jon A. Buell and Quentin O. Hyder, Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 50.
Geisler, 528.
Ibid, 529.
Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 46.
Ibid.
F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 22.
McDowell, 56.
Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (New York: Ward, Lock, Bowden, 1900), 18:3.
Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 90.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Geisler, 382.
Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: History of Negev (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cadahy, 1959), 31.
William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Baltimore: Penguin, 1949), 127-28.
Ibid, 248.
Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1977), 56.
A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 189.
