In the Spring of 2006, the country was all abuzz over the book turned movie The Da Vinci Code.  One of the major themes of the movie is that the New Testament is unreliable.  As one of the main characters, Sir Leigh Teabing says, “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.”  What are we to make of this?  When a person holds a New Testament in his or her hand, can one be assured that what we have is what the authors originally wrote?  Is the New Testament historically reliable? 

            This question is hard to underestimate because if the New Testament (NT) is the long product of changes and inaccuracies, why should we trust its teachings about the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus?  If, however, it is found to be reliable, this changes everything.  Then, we have to wrestle with the claims of Christ as passed down to us.  These claims present to us a Jesus who says unprecedented things about himself and performs feats no one has ever done.  So let’s look where the evidence leads us. 

 

 

            To begin with, when historians examine ancient documents, they employ three tests: bibliograpy, internal, and external.  These tests are used whether the literature is from Christian Scripture or an ancient Roman historian.  Let’s look first at the bibliography test. 

 

            This test has two components: 1) the number of manuscript copies and 2) the time interval between the original manuscripts and the oldest copies (of those manuscripts) we now possess.  Below is a chart that compares different documents from antiquity.   

Plato 400 BC                                                          7                         1300

Thucydides 460-400 BC                                      8                         1300

Herodotus 480-425 BC                                        8                         1350

Caesar’s Gallic Wars   100-44 BC                    10                        1000

Homer’s Illiad 800 BC                                         643                      400

New Testament (NT)                                           5686          40-50 first portion of NT

                                                                                                        100 first NT book

                                                                                                        225 first complete NT

           

            You will notice that the first four writers—Plato, Thucydides, Herodotus, and the Gallic Wars--all have very few actual manuscripts.   Moreover, the time interval between the original manuscripts and the copies is quite large.  At first glance, one would assume that these documents are unreliable.  Not so fast.  For the most part, ancient historians regard these works as reliable.  “Why,” you might ask?  They have no reason to doubt that the manuscripts have been corrupted over time.  Famed biblical scholar F. F. Bruce writes, “The History of Thucydides (c.460-400 B.C) is known to us from eight MSS [manuscripts], the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.  The same is true of the History of Herodotus (B.C. 488-428). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals” (The New Testament Documents, 16-17).

 

            The next writer, Homer and his work Illiad, is better attested—643 manuscripts that date 400 years past the original.  Like with the others, ancient scholars have a firm trust in the reliability of these texts.  What about the New Testament?  

           

            Amazingly, the New Testament puts to shame its nearest competitor Illiad.  The NT has 5686 manuscripts—nearly eight times as many copies as the Illiad.  F. E. Peters writes, “On the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians’ New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity” (The Harvest of Hellenism, 50).  Bruce nicely summarizes, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament” (The New Testament Documents).  It should also be kept in mind that on several occasions the Roman Empire made it illegal to possess copies of the NT (for example, the Emperor Diocletian’s edict in 303 AD).  The Roman authorities actually burned these copies.  Who knows how many more copies would have survived if not for such persecution?

 

            Also, the time interval between the original manuscripts and the copies are much shorter.  We have a portion of the Gospel of John that dates to 40-50 years after its composition.  The first entire book of the NT we have comes 100 years after it was written and our first complete NT comes 225 years later.  Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, writes, “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.  The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts . . . are of the fourth century--say from 250 to 300 years later.  This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earlier manuscripts” (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 4).

 

            If we apply the standards of ancient history to the NT, the NT stands far above its peers.  The fact is, if we deny the NT we must deny much of ancient history.  William Albright, perhaps the world’s greatest biblical archaeologist, writes, “No other work from Graeco-Roman antiquity is so well attested by manuscript tradition as the New Testament. There are many more early manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of any classical author, and the oldest extensive remains of it date only about two centuries after their original composition” (The Archaeology of Palestine, 238).  The NT passes the bibliography test with flying colors.

 

            The internal test focuses on the document itself: Does the document possess features that make it believable or unbelievable?  We should seek to evaluate as objectively as possible the document based on its own content.  When it comes to the NT, there are at least three important features that make it highly credible.   

Embarrassment

 

            What is this criterion?  Humans love to cover their flaws, their embarrassments.  Thus, when a writer includes such embarrassing truths, it indicates a high degree of veracity.  The NT is remarkable for the candidness about its characters.  In particular, the flaws of the apostles (the writers of the NT) are laid bare before the world.  Here are some examples of their rather grievous shortcomings:

 

 

The extreme candidness of the apostles lend heavy credibility that they were not intent on fabricating details.  Rather, they faithfully recorded the facts . . . even to their own chagrin. 

Eyewitness accounts

 

            The writers repeatedly affirm that they were eyewitnesses of the events they describe (Luke 1:1-4; John 19:35; Acts 2:22, 26:24-26; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3).  Why is this important?  Eyewitnesses are more reliable than secondhand testimonies.  Moreover, the writers wrote within the lifetimes of the people who knew Jesus.   Below is a chart given the names and dates of the writers:

 

James             early or mid-40’s

Paul                 50--66 AD

Mark                 50-60                                      

Luke/Acts        early 60’s                                

Peter                60’s                                        

Matthew           70-80

John                 80-100

 

            Why is it important that the authors write within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses?  It is vital that both believers and skeptics were alive to refute the apostles if they were in error.  For example, if the Gospels claimed that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead but eyewitnesses were there who knew that Lazarus never died, it would contradict the Gospel writers (see John 11).   Therefore, the apostles were not free to make up whatever they wanted.  If they wanted to convince people of the truths about Jesus, they needed to get their facts right.  Because they wrote within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses of Jesus, they had to record the facts.  They had to be very reliable!   

 

Hard Sayings of Jesus

 

            If you were trying to gain a following, more than likely you would not say things that would drive people away.  However, the Christian Gospels, which were written to convince people that Jesus was God in human flesh and the Lord and Savior of all, record sayings of Jesus that a lot of people reject.  For example, Jesus claims to be God (John 8:58).  This claim was shocking.  Jesus was a faithful Jew who knew his claims to deity would alienate his fellow Jews who were strict monotheists.  However, the Gospels never shy away from telling Jesus’ bold and unique words. 

 

            Also, Jesus calls his disciples for an absolute commitment, even to the point of persecution and death (Matthew 5:10-12; Luke 14:26-27).  Surely knowing that he could have attracted larger crowds with more palatable teachings, Jesus however never lessens the demands to follow him. 

 

            Finally, Jesus roundly and vehemently criticizes the Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 23).  For many people, these leaders were recognized spiritual guides.  Rather than glossing over these deficiencies and hoping to build alliances with them, Jesus confronts the Jewish leaders.  Jesus’ followers knew that recording these words would alienate themselves from the Jewish ruling classes.  However, the truth took precedence over simply keeping the peace. 

 

 

 

            Finally, the external test concerns the evidence outside of the NT.  In other words, putting the Bible to the side, do outside sources affirm the content of the NT?  First, let us look to archaeology.  Repeatedly archaeology has confirmed what skeptics previously doubted.  For example, skeptics questioned the NT because no records existed that Pontius Pilate lived (Pilate preside over Jesus’ trial--Matt 27:1-2).  However, in 1961, an inscription was discovered with the name Pontius Pilate.  Time and again, archaeology has corroborated biblical references.  Again, the esteemed Albright states, “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” (The Archaeology of Palestine, 238).

 

            Let us also look at Luke who wrote the NT book Acts which is the history of the early church. It is widely recognized that Luke is a very trustworthy historian.  Sir William Ramsey, who was one of the greatest archaeologists who ever lived, originally doubted Luke.  However, after studying Luke he radically changed his mind.  After 32 years of studying Luke, he concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 222).  Luke knew specialized details which would not have been known except to a traveler--exact titles of officials, identification of army units, and info about major routes.  There also is a precise correlation of kings and governors as well as correct idioms of the 1st century.  Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands without one error.  Extrabiblical evidence support the content of the NT. 

 

            Also, the writings of non-Christians affirm the basic tenets of the NT.  Here is a sample: 

 

 

 

 

These ancient writers, none of whom are Christians, provide indirect support of the reliability of the NT by testifying to central Christian beliefs: Jesus died on the cross during the reign of Pontius Pilate, he rose from the dead, he was the Messiah (Christ), and worshiped as God.  

 

 

 

            If examined objectively as a historical document, the NT passes the standard tests for reliability: bibliography, internal, and external.  Therefore, when we hold a copy of the NT in our hands, we can have the utmost confidence that we possess what the original authors wrote.  The issue, then, is not whether the NT is trustworthy.  The crucial issue is whether you will choose to believe its claims by and about Jesus.  The NT writers carefully recorded the life of Jesus because they wanted their readers to know Jesus as they did: as Lord and Savior.  John 20:30-31 says, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”