The Reliability of the New Testament

The Reliability of the New Testament

Prepared for TH365 "Apologetics Evangelism" at Calvary Chapel Bible College
By Bob Koehler - March 24, 2007

“When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, ‘Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?’”[1] This is the most critical question we will ever have to answer because our eternal destiny depends on what we believe about Jesus Christ.[2] Most of our information about Jesus comes from the Bible and, more specifically, the New Testament. How do we know that we can trust what we read in the pages of Scripture? How do we know that what we are told about Him in the New Testament is the truth?

The Bible came from God to us through four different processes which are like links in a chain. These are inspiration, canonization, transmission and translation.[3] After God had spoken through the inspired authors, their writings were assembled and recognized. From studying the writings of the early church fathers we know that very early in the history of the church the writings of the apostles were spread throughout the Christian world, collected and preserved. According to scholar and theologian Norman Geisler: “The corroborative quotations of the church Fathers from the first few centuries, totaling over 36,000, include almost every verse of the New Testament.”[4]

“The story of the transmission and translation of the Bible is an exciting one, and confirms our confidence in Scripture.”[5] In this paper we will examine the reliability of the New Testament. Since the original Bible documents were written thousands of years ago, what confidence can we have that these writings have been preserved intact down through the ages? Were the scribes faithful in fulfilling their duties? Did they add to or subtract from the original text? Are the manuscripts we have reliable? Are biblical assertions supported by archaeology, science and history?

The first specific area we will examine is the manuscript evidence for the New Testament. Manuscripts are handwritten documents, in contrast with printed copies. An autograph is the first or original document produced by the author. Norman Geisler states: “There are no known extant original manuscripts of the Bible. However, the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with complete accuracy.”[6]

Critics frequently attack the New Testament’s reliability. But if they throw out the New Testament then they need to question all other ancient literature such as the writings of Plato, Aristotle and others. This is because there are more that 5,600 Greek manuscripts and more than 19,000 non-Greek manuscripts for a total of more than 24,000 documents supporting the New Testament. In comparison there are only about twenty manuscripts of the writings of Plato’s Tetrologies and five for Aristotle’s works.[7] Concerning the reliability of non-biblical ancient writings, Lee Strobel, in his book “The Case for Christ” states that “there is but the thinnest thread of manuscripts connecting these ancient works to the modern world.”[8]

Another very interesting and important fact is that many of the manuscripts supporting the New Testament are very close in date to the time the original “autographs” were produced. For many years skeptics have contended that the Gospels were not composed until many years after the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry. They claimed that myth and legend had crept in to the historical account. Liberal German theologians have argued that the Gospel of John was not written until the late 2nd century.[9] Their claim was that the manuscript copies were too far removed in date from the originals. The recent discovery of the John Rylands P52 papyrus fragment narrowed the time gap between autograph and manuscript to as little as 25 years.[10]

The next area we will look at is archaeological support for the New Testament. This field of study fascinates me. I am absolutely thrilled beyond belief when I read about discoveries of ancient artifacts from the Bible lands. We know that archaeology “can’t prove whether the New Testament is the word of God”[11] but it can serve to bolster our faith and trust.

One discovery of note is the James Ossuary. This may be the earliest archaeological find related to James and Jesus. In the days of the early church grave sites were at a premium. After a person was placed in a tomb and the flesh had completely decayed, it was common practice for bones to be placed in a special container called an ossuary so that the tomb could be used again. The James Ossuary dates from about 63 AD and bears the Aramaic inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”[12]

The Gospels give us accounts of Jesus standing before Pilate and being sentenced to scourging and crucifixion. Many liberal critics discounted this portion of the New Testament due to a lack of any external evidence about the existence of Pilate. In 1961 a team of archaeologists led by Dr. Antonio Frova were digging in an old amphitheatre near Caesarea Maritima. They found a block of limestone with an inscription of dedication to Tiberius Caesar.[13] The Latin lettering on the block showed specifically that the dedication was from: “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” This is the only evidence available outside Scripture that verifies Pilate’s title and name.[14]

A major portion of the New Testament, more than 20 percent, was authored by Luke, a physician and companion of the Apostle Paul. Conservative scholars have long settled on a mid-first century date for Luke’s writing of the book of Acts. Sir William Ramsay, a noted archaeologist, tried to prove that Acts was written at around 150 AD. During his research he changed his mind and “became a firm defender for the mid-first century authorship of Acts.”[15]

Doubters have assailed Luke’s writings as being unreliable because of his usage of certain words and also his mention of specific locations which had not been verified elsewhere. Researcher Colin J. Hemer has written a book entitled “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.” In this work Hemer defends a 66 AD date for Acts and also Luke’s authorship. He provides extensive evidence from archaeological finds about Luke’s accuracy as a historian. Some examples include: A natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5); Perga as the proper port for a ship crossing from Cyprus (Acts 13:13): The correct location of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6) and many, many more.[16]

Next we will turn to the area of scientific evidence that supports the New Testament. The Old Testament contains many truthful assertions about our world which are accepted today as fact by the secular scientific community. The New Testament contains declarations by Jesus that the Old Testament writings are inspired. For example in Matthew 12:39 He verifies His belief in the book of Jonah and in Matthew 22:43 He says that David was speaking “in the Spirit”[17] when he wrote the book of Psalms. In an indirect way this shows that the Bible as a whole should be seen as a unified document. The Old Testament looks forward to Jesus through its prophetic statements and Jesus, speaking in the New Testament, agrees with the Old Testament, which includes correctly stated scientific facts.

We have already seen that there is a great body of manuscript and archeological evidence supporting the New Testament. The dates of these manuscripts and archaeological finds have been determined using modern scientific methods. The book of Hebrews speaks correctly about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In Chapter 1 we read: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment.”[18] Also in Hebrews, long before the discovery of the atom, the New Testament told us that, from man’s observational perspective, everything we see was made from invisible material: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”[19]

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is the central event of Christianity. Many skeptics have attacked the New Testament accounts of these historical happenings. Jesus had to die in order to fulfill God’s righteous requirements as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. If Jesus’ death cannot be verified some might doubt their salvation. But “professional medical opinions are unanimous in concluding that Jesus certainly died as a result of being crucified.”[20]

Now let’s review some of the historical evidence supporting the New Testament. In his book “Vintage Jesus,” Mark Driscoll makes a compelling case for our Christian faith. He states that “Jesus’ death was widely known and reported” among the ancient Romans, Greeks and Jews since they “all agreed” that they “opposed Jesus and wanted him dead.”[21] He then goes on to describe statements in the secular historical writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger that back up the New Testament accounts.

We know from chapter 27 of the book of Matthew that while Jesus was on the cross “from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.”[22] This is also mentioned by Luke in chapter 23 of his Gospel as well as in Mark chapter 15. In addition we are told: “Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split.”[23] Here are two unusual miraculous events associated with Jesus and the New Testament. Of course many liberal theologians deny even the possibility of the miraculous and these accounts have been criticized as being exaggeration, metaphor or myth.

But here is a very interesting account from Phlegon, a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137: “In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was the greatest eclipse of the sun … it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”[24] This event is also spoken of by the ancient historians Africanus and Thallus. We see that manuscripts, archaeology, science and history all help to support the reliability of the New Testament.

The next area we will examine is the development of the modern day English Bible translations. The history of the text of the New Testament is a fascinating story. The King James Version based on the Textus Receptus was widely accepted from its inception in the early 1600’s until the late 1800s.

Since about 1881 there has been a heated debate among scholars and theologians regarding portions of the New Testament text. Rev. Brian Felce describes the controversy: “Until 1880 the Authorised Version (KJV) was used by almost everyone in the English-speaking churches. Since 1881 there has been doubt about 10% of the New Testament in over 5,000 different places, and in effect there have been in existence two different New Testaments … Upon which … are we to rest our souls…?”[25]

Over time different schools of New Testament text developed. Some have classified these in as many as four different types of New Testament text, but others suggest that there are really only two basic sources: The Majority Text or Textus Receptus preserved by churches of true Christian Protestant believers (such as the church at Antioch) and the Minority or Alexandrian text group used primarily in Catholic Bibles.[26]

The first major text to be published which countered the Textus Receptus was the combined work of two scholars from Cambridge: B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. This was the text primarily used for the New Testament in the Revised Version of 1881.[27] David Brown asserts that “at present there are two basic textual traditions that command serious scholarly followings: the Textus Receptus/Majority Text and the Nestle-Aland text” [28] based on the work of Westcott and Hort.

One primary issue in the textual debate is the question: Which ancient manuscript or type of manuscript should be selected as the most reliable witness to the original text? Westcott and Hort based their work primarily on three or four uncials which are purported to be some of the oldest extant evidence. Their contention is that the age of the manuscript is the most important factor in determining reliability.

Volumes have been written on this debate. The key factor is that proponents of the Westcott and Hort and the Nestle and Arland texts have not always told the complete truth. Dr. Brown sums up the situation nicely: “Finally, I must point out something ironic about these two alleged "oldest and best" manuscripts. They do not agree with each other!”[29] These modern day scholars have chosen age as their primary criteria while ignoring a great body of evidence on the other side of the question.

It appears that Westcott, Hort and their supporters have let their own personal bias color their judgment. Here are two examples of the underlying ideas which may have affected their research. Hort believed that “no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants.”[30] This is a direct contradiction of the doctrine of original sin and the basic conservative theological position that everyone descended from Adam and Eve inherited a sin nature not possessed by our “first parents.”

In another example Westcott declared: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.”[31] This is blatant anti-supernaturalism. Can a person doubt miracles (like the resurrection) and still be a Christian?

Here are the words of theologian David Fuller: “Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God.”[32]

Even though there is debate over the various English translations there is a basic issue that will never be resolved. The problem is that “exact translation is impossible. Meanings of words and grammatical structures in any two languages do not generally correspond.”[33] So where do we go from here? How do we have confidence that we are really reading and studying God’s Word?

Despite the controversies, both of the major Greek texts used for English Bible translations are extremely accurate. Before his death in 1952, British paleographer and scholar Sir Frederick Kenyon stated:

“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.”[34]

The New Testament Greek text, as we have it today, is about 98 to 99.5 percent correct.[35] If a person chooses a widely accepted scholarly English Bible, translation differences or variant readings are not significant enough to call into question major Bible doctrines.[36]

My studies in Apologetics and my reading and research in preparation for this paper have firmly convinced me that the Bible I hold in my hand contains the “vox” (voice or meaning) of God’s Word. I can base my faith, my hope of salvation and my abundant life in Christ on the principles found in Scripture with no doubt that God has spoken to me through its pages.

I will continue praying for God to open up more opportunities for service and especially for teaching his Word and reaching out to others who need to know more about Jesus. In addition I need to pray for humility and be certain that my goal in my studies is not just head knowledge.

I plan to use material from this class whenever possible as I lead Bible studies and teach at my church. I will continue reading and studying Scripture as well as other books on Christianity. My goal is to be faithful to the principles taught by Paul when he told Timothy: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”[37]

I need to be diligent to ask for the Lord’s guidance about priorities so that I am being faithful to my biblical duties as a husband, father and son. My desire in everything is to seek to know Jesus more fully and completely and apply what I learn so that my life will continue each day to be conformed more into His image.

Bibliography:

Beecham, R.: “Which Bible Translation?” http://ourworld.compuserve.com.

Blunt, David: Quotes from Westcott and Hort, www.acts1711.com.

Brown, David L.: The Great Uncials, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/%20CriticalTexts/uncials.htm.

CARM.org: “Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability,” http://www.carm.org.

Driscoll, Mark & Breshears, Gerry: Vintage Jesus, Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.

Elwell, Walter A.: Comfort, Philip Wesley: Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001 (Tyndale Reference Library).

Felce, Brian: The Revised Version: The Debate Over the Text of Scripture, http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk.

Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.: A General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Appendices, Murrieta, CA: CCBC, 2005.

Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Notes, Murrieta, CA: CCBC.

Jaroncyk, Ryan: “Darkness at the Crucifixion: Metaphor or Real History?” http://creationontheweb.com.

Koehler, R.: “Transmission of the Biblical Text,” Research Paper for CCBC, 2007.

Licona, Mike: “Can We Be Certain That Jesus Died On A Cross?” http://www.4truth.net.

McGee, Mark: “Archaeology and the Bible,” http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee.

Miller, Betty: “History of the Authority and Infallibility of the Bible,” http://bibleresources.bible.com.

Richards, Lawrence O.: The Bible Readers Companion, electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991; Pub. in electronic form by Logos Research Sys, 1996, S. 13.

Russell, R.: “The Pilate Inscription,” http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html.

Strobel, Lee: The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Nashville: Nelson, 1982.

Waite, D. A.: Westcott & Hort's Greek Text and Theory Refuted, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/.

A good source for Christian Books and Music is BestOfTheWebShopping.Com

Footnotes:
[1] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Mt 16:13
[2] Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. 1:498
[3] Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.: A General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, p. 321.
[4] Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago : Moody Press, 1986, S. 345
[5] Richards, Lawrence O.: The Bible Readers Companion. electronic ed. Wheaton : Victor Books, 1991; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 13
[6] Geisler, Norman L. ; Nix, William E.: A General Introduction to the Bible. 1986, S. 386.
[7] Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Appendices, Murrieta, CA : CCBC, 2005, 18.
[8] Strobel, Lee: The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan, 1998, 77.
[9] Strobel, Lee: The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan, 1998, 80.
[10] Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Appendices, Murrieta, CA : CCBC, 2005, 17.
[11] Strobel, Lee: The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan, 1998, (quoting John McKay) 127.
[12] Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Appendices, Murrieta, CA : CCBC, 2005, 26.
[13] Russell, R.: “The Pilate Inscription,” http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html.
[14] Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Appendices, Murrieta, CA : CCBC, 2005, 26.
[15] McGee, Mark: “Archaeology and the Bible,” http://www.mindspring.com/~mamcgee.
[16] Holden, Joe: Apologetic Evangelism Notes, Murrieta, CA : CCBC, 60.
[17] The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Nashville: Nelson, 1982, Mat. 22:43.
[18] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 1:10-11.
[19] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 11:3.
[20] Licona, Mike: “Can We Be Certain That Jesus Died On A Cross?” http://www.4truth.net.
[21] Driscoll, Mark & Breshears, Gerry: Vintage Jesus – Timeless Answers to Timely Questions, Wheaton : Crossway, 2007, 140-141.
[22] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Mt 27:45.
[23] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Mt 27:51.
[24] Jaroncyk, Ryan: “Darkness at the Crucifixion: Metaphor or Real History?” http://creationontheweb.com.
[25]Felce, Brian, The Revised Version: The Debate Over the Text of Scripture, http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk
[26]Brown, David L.: The Great Uncials, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm
[27]Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.: A General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, p. 455.
[28]Geisler, N. L. and Nix, W. E.: A General Introduction to the Bible, Chicago : Moody Press, 1986, p. 461.
[29]Brown, David L.: The Great Uncials, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/uncials.htm.
[30]Blunt, David: Quotes from Westcott and Hort, www.acts1711.com.
[31] Blunt, David: Quotes from Westcott and Hort, www.acts1711.com.
[32] Blunt, David: Quotes from Westcott and Hort, www.acts1711.com.
[33] Beecham, R.: “Which Bible Translation?” http://ourworld.compuserve.com.
[34] Geisler, N. L. & Nix, Wm.: A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago : Moody Press, 1986, S. 405.
[35] CARM.org: “Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability,” http://www.carm.org.
[36] Miller, Betty: “History of the Authority and Infallibility of the Bible,” http://bibleresources.bible.com.
[37] The Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. 2 Ti 2:15.