You are on page 1of 14

The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

The Historical Reliability of the New


Testament
Rich Martinez

2002, R. Martinez. All rights reserved

Introduction
Significant scholarly attention has been devoted to
the historical examination of the New Testament,
specifically with respect to establishing it as a
reliable historical document. Undeniably, the vast
amount of material, in the form of manuscripts,
archaeology, and authorial phenomenon provides
an invaluable glance into the depths of events
surrounding the historicity as well as the
development of the New Testament. My contention
is that without establishing historical credibility for
the New Testament, we have no grounds to
postulate any sort of belief in it as a reliable
source. According to Norman Geisler, professor of
theology and apologetics at Southern Evangelical
Seminary, "without a reliable New Testament, we
have no objective, historical way to know what
Jesus said or did. We cannot establish whether he
was God, what he taught, or what his followers did
and taught" (Geisler, 1999, p527). With that said, it
will, then, be my attempt to provide a thorough
presentation of the evidence that is with us today,
while juxtaposing, adding, and infusing the book's
original content with the scholarly research that
has gone before us.

Manuscript Evidence:
The number of extant New Testament manuscripts
far out-weighs the number of classical ancient
manuscripts available to us today, such as Tacitus'
Annals of Imperial Rome; Josephus' The Jewish
War; and Homer's Iliad. According to NT scholars,
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 1 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

there are well over 5300 partial and complete New


Testaments Manuscripts, which includes
approximately 10,000 Latin translations; 9000
Ethiopian, Slavic, and Armenian translations. In
sum, the number of extant partial or complete
manuscripts at our disposal total approximately
24,000 (Strobel, 1998, p63).

In contrast, concerning the classical works of


antiquity, the length of time between the originals'
and their subsequent copies' is roughly 500 - 1000
years. Whereas, the length of time between the
original New Testament writings or autograph's,
and extant copies is approximately 200 years.
Thus, no other ancient texts are as well preserved
as the New Testament.

For instance, Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome, the


"first six books exist today in only one manuscript,
and it was copied about A.D. 850. Books eleven
through sixteen are in another manuscript dating
from the eleventh century" (p.60). In addition, only
approximately half of Tacitus' Histories and Annals
remain today. Josephus' The Jewish War, were
written in the "tenth, eleventh, and twelfth
centuries. There is a Latin translation from the
fourth century and medieval Russian materials
from the eleventh or twelfth century." (p.60).
Furthermore, Homer's Iliad, has by far the most
extreme spatial distance between its original
autograph (850 B.C.) and its subsequent extant
copies, which presently date to the second and
third century A.D. and following. That's a 1000 year
gap between the original's and their copies.
Moreover, the Iliad was considered by many in its
day to be the equivalent to our bible today. The
way the Ancient Greek's treated the Iliad is
comparable to the way Christians treat the Bible
today - with reverential respect.

It's interesting that whereas the New Testament


receives much criticism from critical scholarship,
the Iliad and many similar works receive virtually
no criticism whatsoever. The phenomenon occurs
in that, the total number of NT manuscripts as well
as the historicity behind the text is by far, much
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 2 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

greater and weightier than any ancient classical


piece of literature that has come down to us
through the ages. It can be empirically verified that,
"the text of the Bible has been transmitted
accurately. In fact, there is more evidence of the
reliability of the text of the Newt Testament as an
accurate reflection of what was initially written than
there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put
together. We may rest assured that what we have
today is a correct representation of what was
originally given" (McDowell, 24). Moreover, "If one
will judge the New Testament documents with the
same standards or tests applied to any one of the
Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly
favors the New Testament. If a person contends
that we have a reliable text of the classics, then he
would be forced to admit we have a reliable text of
the New Testament" (24).

If we were to examine the dating of Plato and


Aristotle's writings, the gap between the original
autographs and subsequent copies is significant -
1000 years. There is an interesting phenomenon
about this. Most liberal scholars would not argue
over the accuracy or content of ancient classical
works, but their perspective in regards to the NT is
quite different. They are quick to find fault and
criticize the NT more easily than they are to
support it. If they were to suspend their tainted
view's and examine this objectively, they would
realize that this is nothing but the result of bias
attitudes towards the Bible. In fact, two scholars
who lend themselves to the field of Biblical Higher-
Criticism had this to say concerning the reliability of
New Testament manuscripts, in comparison to
other ancient classical works:

1) John A.T. Robinson explains, "The Wealth of


manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of
time between the writing and the earliest extant
copies, make it by far the best attested text of any
ancient writing in the world" (Habermas, 1).

2) "Classical authors are often represented by but


one surviving manuscript; if there are half dozen or
more, one can speak of a rather advantageous
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 3 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

situation for reconstructing the text. But there are


nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in
Greek The only surviving manuscripts of
classical authors often come from the Middle Ages,
but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as
early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separate by
only a century or so from the time at which the
autographs [originals] were written. Thus it seems
that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is
far more advantageous than that for the textual
criticism of classical authors" (Habermas, 1).

New Testament Manuscripts vs.


Classical works of Antiquity

(McDowell, 45)

Internal Evidence - a) reliability of the


witnesses

External Evidence - a) ancient historians


B) archaeological support

The accuracy of a text or manuscript is contingent


on several factors, one being of course, how close
it was written to the original autograph's. It
presupposes for instance, that a fourth century
manuscript will contain less scribal errors than an

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 4 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

eighth century manuscript would contain. This


simply means that the more time that lapses
between the original texts that were written and
their subsequent copies, the less accurate the text
will be. However, it should be stated that with the
total number of extant NT manuscripts at our
disposal today, in conjunction with the science of
textual criticism, we are now better able to
reconstruct what the original manuscript's might
have looked like. According to Norman Geisler, "
the present Greek text [modern versions]is
probably over 99% accurate in reproducing the
exact words of the autographs" (Geisler, 1986,
p346). Moreover, if we did not have any
manuscripts today, we would be able to produce a
copy of the NT based on the writings' of the early
church fathers. According to Peter Wegner, "It has
been said that the church fathers quoted the New
Testament so extensively that if all our other
sources o the New Testament were to be
destroyed, it could be reconstructed from the
church fathers' quotations alone" (Wegner, 227).

Many individuals think the New Testament is not a


valid source because it was written by imperfect
human beings, implying that there are too many
errors in it, which make it an unreliable document
or source. A few things should be mentioned about
this. It is a proven fact that there are approximately
200,000 textual variants within the 24,000 extant
NT manuscripts available to us today. By definition,
textual variants are 'the differences in text between
one manuscript and another. The textual
differences or scribal errors in the verses below are
known as "Textual Variants." These errors occur
when a scribe is translating from one copy to
another. For instance, in taking the following
example, we will say that A, B, C, D represent a
verse of scripture taken from different manuscript
families:

Manuscript A = Jesus Christ Died


fro us.

Manuscript B = Christ Jesus Died


for us.

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 5 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

Manuscript C = Jesus Christ Died


for su.

Manuscript D = Jesus Christ Deid


fo us.

It's fairly obvious from the example provided above


that certain scribal errors were made from the
original text it was copied from. Using this simple
example allows us to see how Textual Critic's are
able to reconstruct what the original documents of
the New Testament would have looked like, prior to
any New Testament copies being made.

It should be mentioned, however, that the 200,000


textual variants contained in the NT, "represent
only 10,000 places in the New Testament. If one
single word is misspelled in 3000 manuscripts, this
is counted [by Biblical scholars] as 3,000 variants"
(Geisler, 1986, p361). For instance, the word
"Deid," which we know is "Died" could have
appeared in over 3000 manuscripts, which would
thus account for 3000 variants out of a total of
200,000 variants. Norman Geisler stated that
"Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that
only one in sixty of these variants has significance.
This would leave a text 98.3% percent pure." This
means that out of the total number of variants
within the New Testament, the text is 99% accurate
and clean from any major doctrinal errors. In
comparison to other ancient books, the New
Testament is by far the most accurate. For
instance, Bruce Metzger estimated, "that the
Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about
90% accuracy and Homer's Iliad with about 95%"
(Geisler, 1991, p533). By comparison he estimated
the New Testament is about 99.5% accurate.

Let us now turn our attention to the archaeological


finds of the New Testament. This should further
substantiate for us not only the historicity but its
basic reliability as well. My contention is that the
common thread throughout the historical and
archaeological literature clearly demonstrates the
soundness of the New Testament as a valid piece
of scholarly work.

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 6 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

Archaeological Evidence
According to the science of apologetics,
archaeology predominately falls within the category
of external evidence. Providing archaeological
evidence is important because it helps establish
the historicity of the New Testament. The NT would
not be a reliable document if the contents or
message of it were accurate but the historicity
behind it was not. In other words, if we come to the
conclusion that what Jesus said in the NT was
God's Word, but then discover the places he
visited were not real places, then, at this point we
would have to seriously question whether what he
said was God's Word or not. Thus it would be fair
to say, then, that the integrity of God's Word should
be questioned if the New Testament cannot
support itself with reliable archaeological evidence.

It should be noted that there are many liberal


archaeologists that separate their historical
discoveries from the message of the Bible. In other
words, they are quick to accept their
archaeological findings as accurate and consistent
with the Biblical text, but are slow to believe in the
message that is laced throughout. For instance,
Israel Finkelstein, co-director of excavations at Tel
Megiddo and professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv
University said: "The most obvious failure has
been the abuse of the Old Biblical archaeology by
semi-amateur archaeologists. I refer to the
romantic days when a special breed of
archaeologists roamed the Middle East with a
spade in one hand and the Scriptures in the other.
These were the times of desperate attempts to
prove that the Bible was correct" (Koukl, 2). My
only concern with statements like this are, 'how
does one go about choosing what he or she should
or should not believe concerning the contents of
the scriptures?' In other words, the history as well
as the meaning behind the Bible is either correct or
incorrect; it cannot be one or the other. The intent
of the New Testament writers was not to establish
the credibility of Jesus apart from the places or
events of history they `wrote; in contrast, their

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 7 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

intent was to record history as it unfolded before


them.

According to Josh McDowell, "Sir William Ramsay


is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologist
ever to have lived. He was a student in the
German historical school of the mid-nineteenth
century. [For instance] he believed that the book of
Acts was a product of the mid-second century
A.D." (McDowell, 109). However, after doing
considerable research for more than 30 years, he
discovered that Luke was a more accurate
historian than he realized. Ramsay said, "Luke is a
historian of the first rank; not merely are his
statements of fact trustworthythis author should
be placed along with the greatest of historians"
(Ramsay, 222).

For centuries, historians thought that Luke was


inaccurate concerning the historicity behind his
writings, but archaeologists have recently come to
the conclusion that Luke was an extremely
accurate recorder of history. F.F. Bruce, of the
University of Manchester commented on the
accuracy of Luke: "Where Luke has been
suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been
vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may
be legitimate to say that archaeology has
confirmed the New Testament record" (Bruce,
1969, p331). For instance, Luke's usage of the
words "part" or "district" were originally thought to
be inconsistent with archaeological finds; that is,
until archaeologist discovered the exact opposite:
"Archaeological excavations, however, have shown
that this very word, meris, [part or district] was
used to describe the divisions of the district. Thus,
archaeology has again shown the accuracy of
Luke" (Free, 320). E.M. Blaiklock, professor of
Classics in Auckland University, concludes that,
"Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in
his own right with the great writers of the Greeks"
(Blaiklock, 89).

Consequently, if we consider Luke to be a reliable


historian, then, we should not only accept the
historicity behind his writings, but along with
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 8 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

accepting this we should adhere to the message


he sought to convey to us through his writings.

Here are a few archaeological discoveries that help


support and establish the historicity of the New
Testament as a reliability and trustworthy
document:

1) Pool of Bethesda - "Some significant


excavations near St. Anne's Church
were conducted a hundred years ago.
These excavations uncovered the
remains of an ancient church which
marked the site of Bethesda" (Bruce,
1985, p94).

2) Millstones - Excavations at
Capernaum unearthed a significant
number of first-century millstones.
According to Josh McDowell, "so many
were recovered that it appears the
inhabitants took advantage of the plentiful
volcanic rock to make and export mills to
other areas" (McDowell, 114). Luke
17:35, "There will be two women grinding
at the same place; one will be taken, and
the other will be left." Luke 17:2,
"Whoever causes one of these little ones
who believes in me to stumble, it is better
that a heavy millstone be hung around
his neck, and that he be drowned in the
depth of the sea."

3) Galilean Boat - In January of 1986 two


brothers discovered on the shores of
Galilee an early Galilean boat, which
dated from 100 B.C. to 100 A.D. It was
apparently used for fishing, and
transporting goods. (Wenham, 116)

4) Pilate - In 1961 two Italian


archaeologists discovered an inscription
that read: "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of
Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the
Caesareans" (Wenham, 116).

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 9 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

5) Caiapha's Tomb - "In 1990 the tomb of


a wealthy family was found near
Jerusalem, and it appears to be the tomb
of the high-priestly family of Caiaphas,
referred to in the Gospels. It contained
ossuaries (stone boxes for the bones of
the deceased) one of which is inscribed
with the high priest's full name: JOSEPH
BAR CAIPHA" (Wenham, 18).

6) Peters Home - Archaeologists have


excavated a first-century house in
Capernaum, which they believe may
have been Peter's home. (Wenham, 116).

7) James, The Brother of Jesus - An


ossuary box was recently discovered by
a Jewish Collector - on the box it says in
Aramaic, "James, the son of Joseph,
brother of Jesus."

Finally, we should consider the testimony of the


internal witnesses (authors), as they provide for us
significant internal evidence for establishing
credibility, which is of utmost significance in our
pursuit of laying the foundation for the
historicity/reliability of the New Testament.

Internal Evidence
In order to determine whether the written record of
the New Testament is credible or not, we need to
examine the authorship behind the text. According
to Aristotle, "The benefit of the doubt is to be given
to the document itself, and not arrogated by the
critic himself" (Montgomery, 29). In other words, we
should objectively listen to the claims of the gospel
writers apart from any preconceived bias attitudes
we might have adopted from our culture or
ancestors. "The New Testament accounts of the
life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men
who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or
who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the
actual events or teachings of Jesus" (McDowell,
52). The following two scriptures exemplify the

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 10 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

closeness of the recorded gospel events, which is


by virtue an "effective means of clarifying the
accuracy of what is retained by a witness"(52).

LUKE: Inasmuch as many have taken in


hand to set in order a narrative of those
things which have been fulfilled among
us, just as those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word delivered them to us, it seemed
good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very
first, to write to you an orderly account,
most excellent Theophilus, that you may
know the certainty of those things in
which you were instructed. Luke 1:1-4

PETER: For we did not follow cunningly


devised fables when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of
His majesty. (2 Pet 1:16)

In opposition to authenticating the gospel


message, it is fair to say that if the writers of the
NT desired to fabricate their message, then, they
probably could have done it through more clever
means. For instance, the story of the women at
Jesus' empty tomb, -- one would think -- should
have been left out of the NT; which is to say that if
the writers were trying to establish a credible
witness among the Jewish and political leaders of
the day, they would not have included this story.
According to Alister McGrath, "The inclusion of
women in such a significant role would have
seemed incomprehensible to the male dominated
society of contemporary Palestine" (McGrath, 93).
Moreover, "Judaism dismissed the value of the
testimony or witness of women, regarding only
men as having significant legal status in this
respect" (93). The fact is, however, that the
gospels record women instead of men, who
describe the story of Jesus' empty tomb, which
further substantiates the gospel writers as credible
witnesses. In essence, they did not surreptitiously
record events to establish credibility; in contrast,
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 11 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

they simply wrote history as it unfolded before


them.

Finally, according to Will Durant, who has spent his


life analyzing records of antiquity, says the literary
evidence indicates historical authenticity regarding
the New Testament:

Despite the prejudices and theological


preconceptions of the evangelists, they recorded
many incidents that mere inventors would have
concealed - the competition of the apostles for high
places in the kingdom, their flight after Jesus'
arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work
miracles in Galilee, the references of some
auditors to His possible insanity, His early
uncertainty as to His mission. His confessions of
ignorance as to the future, His moments of
bitterness, His despairing cry on the cross; no one
reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the
figure behind them. That a few simple men should
in one generation have invented so powerful and
appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so
inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be
a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in
the gospels. After two centuries of higher criticism
the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of
Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the
mot fascinating feature in the history of the
Western man" (Durant, 3:557).

Conclusion
The study of history has been invaluable in
providing direction, continuity, and significance to
human events as they unfold inexorably in space
and time. Over the past two centuries, scholars
have amassed a plethora of empirical evidence
reinforcing the fundamental tenets of the New
Testament. We have seen that it is by far the most
accurately translated ancient piece of literature that
has come down to us through the ages. It is
substantiated by the reliability of the internal
witnesses, such as Luke, Peter, and Paul.
Moreover, recent archaeological finds have further

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 12 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

established the credibility of the New Testament as


a reliable document. It has been my position
throughout this paper that the empirical evidence
provided throughout, will only add in the aggregate
sense to the NT's value and message. Moreover,
the NT has successfully stood the test of empirical
scrutiny, and will continue to endure throughout.

What is of ultimate significance and of eternal


consequence for us, however, is the message the
New Testament conveys to its reader. To
consummate the relationship between the divine
or, better, the New Testament and humankind, let
us consider the echoing words Augustine
encountered many centuries ago: "Tolle, Lege" --
that is -- "Take up and Read!"

Bibliography
Blaiklok, Edward M. The Acts of the Apostles.
Grand Rapids: W.B. Eardmans Publishing Co.,
1959

Bruce, F.F. Archaeological Confirmation of the New


Testament: Revelation and the Bible. Edited by
Carl Henry. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1969.

Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are


They Reliable? 5th rev.ed. Grand Rapids: W.B.
Eardmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ: In The Story of


Civilization series, Vol.3. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1944.

Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History.


Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press Publications, 1950,
1969.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General


Introduction To The Bible. Chicago: Moody Press,
1986.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of


http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 13 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm

Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,


1999.

Habermas, Gary. Why I Believe The New


Testament Is Historically Reliable. 2001.
http://www.apologetics.com.

Koukl, Gregory. Archaeology, the Bible, and the


Leap of Faith. 31, Jan 2001.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/records/archeolo.htm.

McDowell, Josh. The Best of Josh McDowell: A


Ready Defense. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1993.

McGrath, Alister F. An Introduction to Christianity.


Malden: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1997.

Montgomery, John W. History and Christianity.


Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971
(summarizing Aristotle, Art of Poetry, 1460b-61b).

Ramsay, W.M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery


on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.

Strobel, Lee. The Case For Christ: A Journalist's


Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.

Wenham, David, and Steve Walton. Exploring the


New Testament: A Guide to the Gospels & Acts.
Vol. 1. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to


Translations: The Origin and Development of the
Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.

Rich Martinez is a graduate student in the field


of New Testament Studies at the Alliance
Theological Seminary in Nyack, NY.

http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 14 of 14

You might also like