Is the New Testament Historically Reliable - A Question of Faith?
by: Richard Land - Jun 23, 2000 - comment
Recently ABC evening news anchor Peter Jennings, in an interview with Larry King about his television special on the quest for the historical Jesus, concluded that the question of the accuracy of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus was for believers, a matter of faith. As a Christian believer of Baptist and evangelical conviction, I would describe Jennings’ analysis as half right. Ultimately, the question of the historical reliability of the New Testament accounts is a question of faith.
However, it is not just a question of faith. World-class scholars in the field of Near Eastern studies, textual criticism and archeology have devoted their lives and considerable intellectual gifts to detailed investigation of the New Testament texts and the integrity of their transmission down to the present era. Their collective research has produced an impressive body of evidence attesting to the authenticity, accuracy and reliability of the New Testament account of events as well as compelling evidence for the integrity of the transmission of the text.
What about the original New Testament documents? The New Testament was virtually complete by about 100 A.D., with the significant majority of the writings being in existence two to four decades prior to that date. The majority of modern biblical scholars date the four Gospels as follows: Mark, 65 A.D.; Luke, 80-85 A.D.; Matthew, 85-90 A.D.; and John, 90-100 A.D. More conservative scholars such as F.F. Bruce are more inclined to date the first three Gospels somewhat earlier: Mark, about 60 A.D.; Luke, 60-70 A.D.; and Matthew just after 70 A.D. The 13 epistles of the Apostle Paul (Romans through Philemon) both from internal and external evidence can be dated as having been written and widely circulated in the early church between 48 A.D. and 64 A.D.
If Jesus was crucified about 30 A.D., as is generally accepted today, then the great majority of the New Testament writings, including the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, were written while many people who were eyewitnesses to what Jesus said and did were still alive. Even given the shorter life expectancy in the first century, there would have been some eyewitnesses, like the Apostle John himself, who were still alive when John wrote his Gospel. In evaluating the trustworthiness and accuracy of the historical writings of antiquity, one of the most crucial questions is: How soon after the events occurred were they recorded? In comparison to other authenticated document, the time lapse between the Gospel event and Gospel record was not only acceptably, but also remarkably, short.
If the Gospel accounts of the admittedly extraordinary and miraculous events in the life of Jesus and the early church had not happened, it may be fairly assumed that people would have noticed and would have discredited the written accounts when they first circulated among the public. After all, there were powerful contemporary forces with a vested interest in discrediting the Gospel accounts, namely the Roman and Jewish authorities. If they could have discredited the Gospel accounts they would have—all they ever had to do was produce Jesus’ body.
Finally, the question of apostolic motivation must be addressed. Virtually all of the apostles lived subsequent lives of extreme physical privation and suffered excruciating pain and premature death for a cause that they, of all people, had to know was true or false. Why would they sacrifice themselves under such severe persecution for something they knew to be untrue?
The related, but extremely important question of the accuracy and authenticity of the actual text of the New Testament must also be answered: To what extent can we be sure that what we have today in our Greek and English New Testaments represents what the authors wrote? The answer to that question is without parallel in the writings of antiquity. There are now approximately 5,300 Greek manuscripts of parts or all of the New Testament. The most important copies of the entire New Testament are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which date back to approximately 350 A.D. In addition, there are a significant and considerable number of fragments of papyrus copies of the New Testament dating from approximately 180 to 225 A.D., of which the most outstanding are the Chester Beatty Papyri (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyri II, XIV, XV (P66, P72, P75). Using just these five manuscript resources, one can reconstruct all of Luke’s and John’s Gospels, as well as Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, Hebrews and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts and Revelation.
The most dramatic papyrus fragment, called the Rylands Papyrus (P52), is the earliest. Discovered in Egypt in 1917, the papyrus contains John 18:31-33, 37, and dates from 130 A.D. This papyrus, the earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament by fifty years, caused considerable consternation among modern critics who were arguing vociferously that John’s Gospel had to be written in the mid-second century and could not have been written by the Apostle John. Imagine their surprise when a part of a copy of that very Gospel surfaced before it was supposedly composed.
Even earlier than the Rylands Papyrus, however, is the witness to the New Testament text in the thousands of quotations from the New Testament found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (95—200 A.D.), the men who immediately followed the apostles and provided leadership for the Christian movement in the first generations of the post-Apostolic period. If all of the New Testament manuscripts were to disappear, one could still reconstruct all of the New Testament, apart from approximately 15 to 20 verses, just from the citations and quotes contained in writing of the early church fathers.
Thus, it should be no surprise that Sir Frederic Kenyon, one of the greatest twentieth century authors on textual criticism, would conclude:
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established (F.G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 228 ff).
And as F.F. Bruce, long-time Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester and perhaps the most well-respected scholar of the last century in this area of scholarly endeavor, concluded, “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, p.14).
Ultimately, of course, that is the critical point. The New Testament is not a secular document making secular claims, but a religious document making transcendent, supernatural claims; and that makes the question of its reliability and authenticity ultimately a question of faith—faith with a lot of compelling and corroborating evidence, but still faith.
Originally published by Beliefnet as The Accuracy of the New Testament
Further Learning
Learn more about: Faith, Bible