Home

Reliability of the NT Content

Multiple Authors

Once we understand that the transmission of the document has been exceptionally accurate, we need to ask if what was translated and transmitted was accurate. The New Testament was not the work of one single author. Most other ancient documents are written by one or at least two authors. The New Testament, however, is the testimony of nine separate witnesses. We have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews. In all, there are 27 separate books in the NT. The Old Testament Law required multiple attestation. “On the evidence of two or three witnesses, a matter shall be confirmed.” (Deut 19:15)

The traditional authors are said to be Matthew, an apostle of Jesus, Mark, an associate of the apostle Peter, Luke, an associate of the apostle Paul, John, an apostle of Jesus, Paul, an apostle of Jesus, James, brother of Jesus, Peter, apostle of Jesus, Jude, brother of Jesus, and Hebrews, an associate of the apostles. It does not matter if all of these were the authors or not since some were and others were based on eyewitnesses.

Eye Witness Testimony

Eye witness testimony is considered to be the gold standard in law. The fact that these works were based on eye witness testimony is supported by numerous scriptures, several of which are quoted below.

There are numerous scholars who hold that the NT is based on eye witness testimony. Among them are:

Consistency of Paul’s letters with the Gospels

The gospels show internal consistency and accuracy of transmission. The early Pauline letters are consistent with the Gospels and were accepted by the early church. Even the most liberal of scholars accept the First and Second Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians. These were from 55-57 AD. In them, Paul confirms these 27 Gospel facts.

  1. Jewish Ancestry of Jesus (Gal 3:16)
  2. His Davidic decent (Rom 1:3)
  3. His virgin birth (Gal 4:4)
  4. His life under Jewish law (Gal 4:4)
  5. His brothers (1 Cor. 9:5)
  6. His 12 disciples (1 Cor. 15:7)
  7. One of whom was James (1 Cor. 15:7)
  8. That some had wives (1 Cor. 9:5)
  9. Paul knew Peter and James (Gal 1:18-2:16)
  10. Jesus’ poverty (2 Cor. 8:9)
  11. His meekness and gentleness (2 Cor.10:1)
  12. His abuse by others (Rom 15:3)
  13. His teaching on divorce and remarriage (1 Cor.7:10-11)
  14. His view on paying wages of ministers (1 Cor. 9:14)
  15. His view on paying taxes (Rom 13:67)
  16. His command to love one’s neighbors (Rom 13:9)
  17. On Jewish ceremonial uncleanness (Rom 14:14)
  18. On Jesus’ titles of deity (Rom 1:3-4; 10:9)
  19. His institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
  20. His sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21)
  21. His death on the cross (Rom 4:25, 5:8, Gal. 3:13)
  22. To pay for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3, 2 Cor. 5:21)
  23. His burial (1 Cor.15:4)
  24. His resurrection on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4)
  25. His post-resurrection appearance to the apostles (1 Cor.15:5-8)
  26. His post-resurrection appearance to the others (1 Cor. 15:6)
  27. His present position at God’s right hand (Rom 8:34)

No Time for myths (not even with late dates of 70-100 AD)

A frequently made claim is that just as in the child’s game of “telephone”, the message of the NT was quickly lost or modified, and fable and myth were quickly inserted. There are common-sense reasons why this did not happen before the NT was authored. One reason was that those who knew the apostles and their message, and even those who knew Jesus, were still alive at the writing of the NT. They would have corrected or rejected errors. The second is that in a society with an oral tradition, transmission needs to be accurate. The third is that the development of myth can now be traced, and not enough time has transpired for myth to develop.

The writings of the Greek historian Heodotus enable us to test the rate at which a legend accumulates; the test shows that even the span of two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact (W. Craig The Son Rises, 101).

Two generations equals 80 years. Jesus died in AD 33, Paul wrote in 55-61 AD (22 years), and Luke in 62 AD (29 years). The first expected myths would be 140 AD or about the date of the Gospel of Thomas.

Evidence for Acts by A.D. 62 and other internal evidence

Now, Luke was written before Acts (by AD 61), and Matthew and Mark before Luke (by AD 60)

Theologian Bishop John Robinson, a famous liberal critic and proponent of the “Death of God” theology, re-dates his New Testament gospels authorship estimates.

These estimates are from Robinson’s “Redating the New Testament,” pages 352-354. Using the closest possible date would mean that the Gospel was written only seven years after Jesus died.

Robinson’s dates are early and hotly contested. Traditional dates for NT Books are:

Even the late dates are to early for myth, Luke is less than three decades away and Paul only two decades away.

W.F. Albright says: “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably  sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.)

Regarding whether the NT is a legend or novel, C.S. Lewis said, “The non-mythological nature of their writing. “All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian. That’s my job. And I am prepared to say that if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.”

The Nature of the records is authentic.

There is a clear historical setting. The year is AD 29. It is in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar-when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene- during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1-2). We have an exact date, all eight people are known from history, all lived at the same time. This is not a made-up story.

The writings appear authentic and do not show traces of editing to make Jesus or the disciples look better. The material:

Noted Roman historians have confirmed its accuracy. It is astonishing that while Geo-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism… that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious. A.N. Sherwin White, author of Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT,  speaking of the historicity of the New Testament, states, “The confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”

Colin Hemer in his book, “The Book of Acts in the Setting of the Hellenic History,” finds the following support for the reliability of Acts:

Thomas Arnold author of “History of Rome” said, “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of the fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

Noted legal experts have vouched for it.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), in his “Treatise on Law of Evidence, Testimony of the Evangelists,” wrote, “The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader’s perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already stated… If they had thus testified on oath in a court of justice, they would be entitled to credit, and their narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents coming from the proper custody. If so, then it is believed that every honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result be receiving their testimony in the extent of its import:… All that Christianity asks of men on this subject is that they would be consistent with themselves, that they would treat its evidence as they treat the evidence of other things, and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses as they deal with their fellow men when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross-examination. It is confidently believed that the result will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”

Other attorneys who have commented on the reliability of the New Testament are:

In addition to eyewitness testimony and evidence that the authors were familiar with their time, archeology has confirmed numerous references to geographic places and historical figures.