Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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reliable historical document.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
(McDowell, 45)
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 4 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 5 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm
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.
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 7 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm
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."
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 9 of 14
The American Journal of Biblical Theology 27/10/15 12:11 pm
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
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
Bibliography
Blaiklok, Edward M. The Acts of the Apostles.
Grand Rapids: W.B. Eardmans Publishing Co.,
1959
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR02.html Page 14 of 14