Home

Historical Reliability of the New Testament

- Jass Singh

 

 

 

Although the very nature of historical inquiry precludes proof that entails its conclusions with the logical certainty of mathematical reasoning, it is capable of establishing a high statistical probability of the historical reliability of the New Testament. As with scientific or historical research, the biblical scholar is engaged in hypothesis verification. Historiography is a branch of study, which focuses on the logical, conceptual, and epistemological aspects of what historians do. Critical historiography studies, among other things, the different tests, which should be applied to a document to determine whether or not it is historically reliable.[1] When many of these tests are applied to the New Testament documents, they show themselves to be as reliable as, or superior to, most other ancient documents.

 

For example, apologists have often appealed to three general tests for historicity:

1.       The bibliographical test,

2.      The internal test,

3.       And the external test.

The topic is extensive & only a brief survey is presented here.

 

The internal test asks whether the document itself claims to be actual history written by eyewitnesses.

 

The external test asks whether material external to the document (in this case, archaeology or the writings of the early church fathers) confirms the reliability of the document.

 

The bibliographical test seeks to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and how far removed they are in time from the originals.

 

Other tests for historicity have been formulated, some of which are these:

1.       a document has a high probability of reliability if it is a personal letter,

2.       is intended for small audiences,

3.       is written in unpolished style,[2]

4.       and contains trivia and lists of details.

 

The absence of these features does not necessarily mean the document is unreliable; but their presence makes the prima facie acceptance of the document stronger.

1.       Much of the New Testament, especially the apostolic letters and some of the sources behind the Gospels, is made up of personal letters.

2.       Originally intended for individuals and small groups.

3.       In addition, much of the New Testament is in unpolished style,

4.       and there are several examples of inconsequential detail in the Gospels (see Mark 14:51-52; John 21:2, 11).

5.       Further, in 2 Corinthians 12:11-12, Paul writes to a church which is questioning his apostolic authority. To defend himself, he reminds the believers that while he had been with them (approximately four years earlier) he had performed miracles and wonders. If this had not been the case, then Paul would have been a fool to use what everyone knew was a lie to defend himself.

 

These considerations show that when general tests for historicity are applied to the New Testament documents, they pass them quite well.

 

I)  TRADITIONAL METHODS

A)    AUTHORSHIPS

There are no dissenting traditions whatever in the first centuries of the church's history concerning the authorship of the first three Gospels and Acts and concerning the repeated claims that these books were indeed written by Matthew Mark and Luke. This early external evidence - the testimony of the early Church fathers should be taken more seriously than many modern scholars take it. The oldest evidence, the testimony of Papias (preserved and cited by the later Christian historian Eusebius in the early 300s) dates from the beginning of the second century. Papias' testimony affirms that Matthew originally compiled the oracles or sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language and that Mark was Peter's interpreter, writing accurately, though "not in order" what he learned from the apostle (Historia Ecclesiae 3: 39.14-16).

The internal evidence of Luke-Acts certainly fits the early church's claim that these two books were written by Paul's traveling companion and "beloved physician" (Colossians 4:14). In Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; and 27:7-28:16, the writer shifts from third-person to first-person narrative, repeatedly speaking of what "we" did. The most natural explanation of these "we-passages" is that they reflect the eyewitness testimony of one of Paul's traveling companions, who was not present for the remaining events narrated in the gospel and Acts.

In modern times, the classic case for the apostolic authorship of the fourth Gospel was articulated in detail by B.F. Westcott.[3] The argument has never been refuted, though it has often been ignored.

In short, an excellent case can be made for the Gospels and Acts of being written by people who were in a position to know what happened in the lives of Jesus and the apostles.

B)     EARLY DATING

Because Luke shows clear signs of dependence on Mark, Mark must have written earlier.  Clement of Alexandria, claims that Mark wrote while Peter was preaching in Rome (cited in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiae 6.14.6-7).  We know Peter left Jerusalem shortly after his imprisonment there in AD 44 (Acts 12:17), presumably ministered in Asia minor and nearby provinces (1 Peter 1:1), and made it to Rome at least by the early sixties (5:13). So a date for MARK in the mid--to late fifties seems quite plausible. Matthew, as we have already seen, relies on Mark, so his gospel must come some time later. Irenaeus asserts it was written, "while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome." This would require a date in the early to mid-sixties -the most probable dates for the historical writings of the New Testament, thus bolstering the case for their containing reliable history.

C)     the date of the epistle to the Galatians[4]

The destination of the letter appears to have been in the region of the south, including most likely the churches of Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra, Derbe and vicinity. This interpretation of the destination opens the door for the possibility that the letter preceded the Jerusalem Council. Indeed, there is an identity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11. the general parameters of the letter’s date then, would be some time after the first missionary journey (Acts 13, 14), and before the Council. Working within these parameters, Bruce says the most probable place to put the letter seems to be on the eve of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6. Thus the date would be approximately AD 49.

The date of the letter depends on the destination of the letter. The south Galatia theory opens the door for the possibility of an early date. Since this theory is the most tenable, in conjunction with the fact that the letter probably preceded the Jerusalem Council, the best date for Galatians is around AD 49, just before the council and after Paul's first missionary journey.     

D)    the date of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

This passage is one of the earliest and most important of the pre-Pauline creeds in the New Testament and therefore it bears special mention.[5] Several features indicate that it is pre-Pauline:

1)      The words delivered and received are terms descriptive of rabbinic treatment of holy tradition, indicating that this is holy tradition received by Paul.

2)      Several primitive, early, pre-Pauline phrases are used ("the twelve," "the third day," "he was seen," "for our sins" [plural], "he was raised"). These phrases are very Jewish and early.

3)      The poetic style is Hebraic.

4)      The Aramaic Cephas is used; this was an early way of referring to Peter.

The formula is reserved and straightforward. It does not include speculation about how the resurrection took place or about details of the event itself. Thus, Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide says, "This unified piece of tradition which soon was solidified into a formula of faith may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives."[6]

When should this tradition be dated? 1 Corinthians was written in 55AD and Paul first visited the Corinthians in 50AD, so the formula precedes that date. It was already a formalized statement before Paul shared it with the Corinthians. Most scholars date it from three to eight years after Jesus' death. This date fits well with the mention of James and Cephas, who were also mentioned in Galatians 1:18-19. It seems likely, therefore, that this formula was given to Paul at the meeting, which took place three to four years after the crucifixion. A date of three to eight years also fits well with the heavily Semitic flavor of the formula. Of course, the facts reported the crucifixion and the resurrection experiences (if not the resurrection itself)--occurred before the stating of the formula.

From 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, therefore, we have a very early historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

E)     Early date of Gospels.

1)       All liberals agree and accept that

(a)  Galatians was written circa 49 AD

(b) And that Jesus Christ was crucified 32-34 AD 

2)       Galatians 2:1 refers to an event that occurred14 years earlier! i.e. 35 AD => Paul was an eyewitness of those events! & this is less than two years from the resurrection of Jesus Christ! =>
conclusion: there was no time for mythological accretions/inventions! There are no late Gospels!   

3)       Mark refers to the "The high priest" and does not name him => referring to Caiaphas who was high priest till 37-38 AD and his readers knew who he was referring to! If Mark’s gospel was written after 37-38 AD he would have referred to the high priest by name!  =>
conclusion: Mark was written at the latest by 38 AD and then the other gospels followed soon after.

4)      All critics agree that 1 Corinthians 15 was written early, and it mentions a definition of the gospel, which includes the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5)      four-source theory Most NT scholars hold to what is called the four-source theory. According to this view, Mark is the first Gospel and Matthew and Luke used Mark in writing their Gospels--a stronger case being made for Lukan use of Mark than for Matthew's use of Mark. In addition, a Q source is postulated. Some scholars deny the existence of Q, and there is much in question about whether Q--if it existed--was an oral or written source and whether one or more versions of Q existed. Q is alleged to be that material which Matthew and Luke have in common but which is absent from Mark.[7] So, according to the four-source theory, Q and Mark predate Matthew and Luke. It should also be kept in mind that Luke and Acts are two parts of the same document; Luke precedes Acts slightly. This means that if one can date Acts, then Luke would have been written prior to Acts.

6)      DATING OF ACTS:

(a)  Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which is quite odd since much of the activity recorded in Luke-Acts centers around Jerusalem. The omission of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem makes sense if Luke-Acts was written prior to the event itself.

(b)  No mention is made of Nero's persecutions in the mid-60s and the general tone of Acts toward the Roman government is irenic. This fits the pre-65 situation well.

(c) The martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), and Peter (65) are not mentioned in Acts. This is also surprising since Acts is quick to record the deaths of Stephen and James the brother of John, leaders in the early church. These omissions are even more surprising when one realizes that James, Peter, and Paul are the three key figures in Acts. The silence in Acts about these deaths makes most sense if, again, we assume that Acts was written before they occurred.

(d) The subject matter of Acts deals with issues of importance prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD:

·            The falling of the Holy Spirit on different people groups (Jewish, Samaritan, Gentile),

·            the divisions between Palestinian Jews and Hellenistic Jews,

·            Jewish-Gentile relations centering on circumcision and

·            the law of Moses, and

These and other themes make sense prior to 70 AD. At that time Jewish Christianity was wiped out and the importance of a record of how Gentile pagan converts are to relate to Jews in the church would be much lower than the importance of such a record prior to 70 AD.

(e) Several of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. But the phrases the Son of man, the Servant of God (applied to Jesus), the first day of the week (the resurrection), and the people (the Jews) are all phrases that readers would understand without explanation prior to 70 AD. After 70 AD, they would need to be explained. These phrases, therefore, indicate that Acts was intended for an audience, which would remember these terms and their usage.

(f)  The Jewish war against the Romans (from 66 AD onward) is not mentioned in Acts. As Hugo Staudinger argues, "The Jewish war is an important part of the history of the early Church. The original followers in Jerusalem lose their significance through the war. With the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus' prophecy is moreover fulfilled. If Luke had been writing after 70 AD, it would be incomprehensible that he should break off his narrative shortly before the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and not indicate the fate of the followers in Jerusalem."

Acts ends with Paul in jail. Since Paul was executed by Nero in 64 AD this means that Acts was written before 64 AD and a strong case can be made for dating Acts at 62 to 64.[8]

F)      DATING OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, LUKE, MATTHEW & MARK.
The dating of Acts at 62 to 64, means Luke must have been written even earlier! And since Luke used Matthew and Mark, then Matthew and Mark are to be dated even earlier, perhaps from the mid-40s to mid-50s.

G)     In sum, a good deal of evidence shows that the picture of Jesus in the New Testament was present only a few years after the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There simply was not enough time for a great deal of myth and legend to accrue and distort the historical facts in any significant way. In this regard, A. N. Sherwin-White, a scholar of ancient Roman and Greek history at Oxford, has studied the rate at which legend accumulated in the ancient world, using the writings of Herodotus as a test case. He argues that even a span of two generations is not sufficient for legend to wipe out a solid core of historical facts.[9] The picture of Jesus in the New Testament was established well within that length of time.

H)    harmonization

Many apparent discrepancies disappear once we judge ancient historians by the standards of the day rather than ours! Many of the differences between Jesus’ teaching in one gospel and in a parallel account, like many of the questions surrounding the speeches in Acts, are explained once we realize this simple fact.

I)       manuscript evidence

1)      MANUSCRIPT NUMBER: The New Testament documents enjoy superior manuscript evidence. Recent indications are that the New Testament is supported by more than 5,500 copies and partial copies in Greek and other languages, while most ancient classical Greek and Roman texts have fewer than10 each. Moreover, there is comparatively little significant variation between these manuscripts, even when they are derived from different textual families. Too much can be made of this evidence, which alone does not establish the trustworthiness of the New Testament. All it shows is that the text we currently possess is an accurate representation of the original New Testament documents.

2)      MANUSCRIPT DATE: Further, the New Testament copies are much earlier - that is, closer to the original writings than the classical texts.  This makes it at least possible that the biblical writers were in a better position to know what actually occurred. Even the skeptical Helmut Koester attests:  "classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript... but there are nearly 5,000 manuscripts of the NT in Greek... the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE ... thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base, which is far more advantageous than that of the textual criticism of classical authors."[10]

We essentially have what the various authors originally wrote. In fact John Wenham thinks that the overall biblical text is 99.99 percent pure, without any of the differences affecting doctrine.[11] 

J)       Extra biblical sources  

Additionally, approximately one and a half dozen non-Christian, extra-biblical sources confirm many details from Jesus’ life and teachings as found in the Gospels.[12] Early Christian writers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp provide even more confirmation, writing just ten years or less after the completion of the New Testament.[13] When available, archaeological evidence also supports the New Testament.[14]

II)        modern methods

A)    criteriON of Authenticity

1)      early evidence.
Early evidence is strongly preferred above later contributions. With regard to, the historical Jesus, any material between 30 and 50 AD would be exemplary.  Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD. Other examples are supplied by the brief creedal statements that many scholars find embedded within the Book of Acts, which Gerald O’Collins dates to the 30s AD.[15] Further, Paul’s earliest epistles date from the 50s AD.

2)      THE RULE OF IMMEDIACY.
Whenever these early sources are also derived from eyewitnesses who actually participated in some of the events, this provides one of the strongest evidences possible. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this “the rule of immediacy” and terms it “the best relevant evidence.”[16]

3)       independent attestation.
Independent attestation of a report by more than one source is another chief indication that a particular claim may be factual. Of the five sources often recognized in the Gospel accounts,[17] Jesus’ miracles are reported in all five, with some specific occurrences reported in more than one.[18] Jesus’ crucial “Son of Man” sayings are also attested in all five Gospel sources.[19] And the empty tomb is reported in at least three, if not four, of these Gospel sources.[20]

4)      dissimilarity or discontinuity.
A particular saying can be attributed to someone only if it cannot be plausibly accounted for as the words or teaching of other contemporary sources. For Jesus, it must be determined if one of the Gospel teachings can be attributed to either Jewish thought or to the exhortations of the early church.

Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings are multiply attested. It can also be shown that, by the principle of dissimilarity, they are unaccounted for by either Jewish or early Christian teachings. At least some Jews did have a “Son of Man” concept (as indicated by texts like 1 Enoch 46:2; 48:2-5, 10; 52:4; 62:5-9; 69:28-29 and 4 Ezra 13:3ff.), but, of course, it was not applied to Jesus. And even though “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self-designation in the Gospels, none of the New Testament epistles attribute this title to Jesus even a single time. So the conclusion is that, in all likelihood, Jesus must have used this designation for himself.

5)      Palestinian origin
This criterion refers to the presence of Aramaic words, substrata, environment, or other indications of a Palestinian origin. When these conditions appear in the Gospels, perhaps we are looking through a window into the actual teachings of Jesus.

6)      Coherence
If a purported event or teaching fits well with what is already known concerning other surrounding occurrences and teachings of Jesus, it may be said to have a basis in history. The proposed event or saying may even illuminate other known incidents, rendering them more intelligible. For Meier, coherence is one of the best indicators of Jesus’ teachings & he gives many examples.[21]

7)      principle of embarrassment.
The principle of embarrassment, negative report, or surprise is indicated by the presence of disparaging remarks made by the author about him/herself, another individual, or event concerning which the author is friendly and has a vested interest.[22] The point is that, in normal circumstances, most people need a sufficient reason to report very negative things about something, which they deem valuable, or someone they love dearly. This would appear to be the case especially where the purpose of the writing was to instruct the readers in holy living.

Many examples of the principle of embarrassment can be found in the Gospels. The strong unbelief of James, Jesus’ own brother, prior to the crucifixion (Mark 3:20-25; John 7:5) begs an adequate cause for exposing this report about this apostle and pious leader in the early church. This is why the majority of recent critical scholars believe that these are authentic reports.[23] Another example is Jesus’ saying in Mark 13:32, where in the very same context where he indicates that he is the Son of the Father, he also declares that he does not know the time of his coming. But why would not the Son of God know something about the future?[24]

That all four Gospels report that women were the first ones to discover the empty tomb is also quite embarrassing. That it was uncustomary for women even to testify in a law court, especially when it came to crucial matters, indicates that the early church would not have desired to make them their chief witnesses unless they actually were.[25] Lastly, the repeated unbelief and other negative reactions reported about the disciples, both when Jesus told them about his impending resurrection before it occurred (Mark 8:31-33; 9:31-32; 10:32-34; 14:27-31), as well as after Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:17; Luke 24:36-38; John 20:19, 24-25), are further indications, again, that they really did react this way. Otherwise, why else would the disciples, the leaders of the early church, be placed in such a negative light?

8)      ENEMY ATTESTATION
The criterion of enemy attestation is satisfied when an antagonistic source expresses agreement regarding a person or event when it is contrary to their best interests to do so. Maier holds that “such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind of evidence…if Cicero, who despised Catiline, admitted that the fellow had one good quality--courage--among a host of bad ones then the historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous.”[26]

In the case of Jesus’ miracles, an example of enemy attestation is provided by the repeated Gospel testimony that those who opposed Jesus either witnessed these acts and failed to challenge them (Mark 3:1-6), or attributed them to Satan (Mark 3:22-27), thus acknowledging these events. Marcus Borg points out that this is one of the reasons that make it “virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.”[27] In another instance, the Jewish priests are said to have paid the guards at Jesus’ tomb in order to have them report that the disciples stole Jesus’ body (Matthew 28:11-15), thereby agreeing that Jesus’ tomb had been discovered empty.

Critical criteria such as these are very helpful in establishing especially the historicity of separate Gospel accounts. Viewing the texts from various angles helps indicate that many of Jesus’ stories and sayings are historically grounded.       

III)     The Minimal Facts Method

One of the strongest indications of historicity occurs when a saying or event can be constructed from data that are admittedly well established even across a wide range of otherwise diverse historical opinions. Historian Christopher Blake speaks of such scholarly agreement as the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians.”[28]

Along these lines, Gary Habermas has proposed what he has termed the “minimal facts” historical method,[29] in which he employs only those data that satisfy at least two major standards. Each event or saying must be

A)    Exceptionally well attested on multiple grounds, which might be indicated, for example, by authenticity criteria such as those, which are listed above.

B)     Further, the event or saying must be recognized as historical by the vast majority of scholars who treat this subject, especially when they oppose the conclusion that they think is nonetheless warranted.

Conclusion

The various evidences cumulatively present an extremely strong case for the historicity & reliability of the New Testament documents. The NT presents Jesus as truly the divine Son of God who performed miracles, died on the cross, and rose bodily from the dead. Such a belief is far from being unsupportable. It can be given strong historical validation, and one is well within his epistemic rights in believing the substantial historicity of the New Testament documents. Thus, the following statement by R. T France seems to be correct:

“All this, and much more, comes to us from the gospels as a compelling portrait of a real man in the real world of first-century Palestine, and yet one who so far transcended his environment that his followers soon learned to see him as more than a man. It is a portrait which we have, in strictly historical terms, no reason to doubt; it is the philosophical and theological implications which cause many to question whether things can really have been as the gospels present them. But we have seen above sufficient reason to be confident that the gospels not only claim to be presenting fact rather than fiction, but also, where they can be checked, carry conviction as the work of responsible and well-informed writers. The basic divide among interpreters of the gospels is not between those who are or are not open to the results of historical investigation so much as between those whose philosophical/ theological viewpoint allows them to accept the testimony of the gospels, together with the factuality of those records in which it is enshrined, and those, for whom no amount of historical testimony could be allowed to substantiate what is antecedently labeled as a 'mythical' account of events.”[30]

A substantial portion in this article was derived from J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Chapter 5, The Historicity of the New Testament and Gary Habermas, Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels, Christian Research Journal / vol. 28, no. 1, 2005 including the cited footnotes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J.P. Moreland, Chapter 5, The Historicity of the New Testament in Scaling the Secular City.

Craig L. Blomberg, Chapter 6, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith.

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents are they Reliable?

Gary Habermas, Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels, Christian Research Journal / vol. 28, no. 1, 2005, http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm