The Names Of God Part 40

THE HISTORICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The purpose of this paper is to present evidence in defence of the historicity of the New Testament. Through this, it addresses the question of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For if the writers of the New Testament are reliable witnesses, then the most significant event that they ever recorded must then be given more than a glance.

The paper will defend the credibility of the New Testament writings first by running the New Testament through the three standard tests for literary historiography listed by C. Sanders. These are the Bibliographical Test, the Internal Evidence Test, and the External Evidence test (see endnote 1). These are the same tests used on all secular writing of antiquity. The paper will then present arguments of the credibility of the writers of the New Testament.

The Bibliographical Test

When compared to the other writings of antiquity the New Testament not only passes this test but surpasses other ancient writings by far. The bibliographical test examines documents in light of how their present form came to us. It examines attempts to distinguish how loyal our earliest manuscripts are to the original in light of how many manuscripts we have today, how well they agree with one another and the time gap between the original manuscripts and our current ones.

There are approximately 5000 greek manuscripts in our possession today. The earliest of these have been dated within 250 to 300 years of the originals (Mark being dated c. AD 55) (see endnote 2). This may seem like a long gap, but when one looks at the time gaps concerning the other accepted and authoritative writings of antiquity it is actually quite short. For instance, Caesar’s GALLIC WAR (written between 50 and 58 BC) has only 9 or 10 good manuscripts dated 900 years later. Of the 142 books of LIVY’S ROMAN HISTORY (written from 59 BC to AD 17) we have only thirty five. Those we have are constructed from only 20 good manuscripts, one of which is dated in the fourth century. We have only four and a half of the fourteen books of the HISTORIES OF TACTITUS (written c. AD 100). Of the sixteen books of TACITUS’ ANNALS we have ten in full and two in part. Both of Tactitus’ works are based on only two manuscripts. One of the manuscripts is dated in the ninth century and one in the eleventh (that’s an 800 year gap for one and 1000 years for the other). Our copies of Tacitus’ other works (DIALOGUS DE ORATORIBUS, AGRICOLA, and GERMANIA) all are from the tenth century. THE HISTORY OF THUCYDIDES (written 460 to 400 BC) is based on 8 manuscripts, the earliest sporting a 1300 year gap. THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS (written from 488 to 428 BC) also is based on 8 manuscripts, the earliest being 1300 years from the original (see endnote 3). PLINY THE YOUNGER’S HISTORY is known from 7 manuscripts with a 750 year gap. The classic writings of Plato are known from 7 manuscripts with a 1200 year gap and the writings of Aristotle which we derive from 49 manuscripts has a 1400 year gap (see endnote 4). The list goes on and on. F. F. Bruce puts the point well: No classical author would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works are over 130 years later than the originals. But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! (see endnote 5) With the 5000 greek manuscripts, the over 8000 manuscripts of

the Latin Vulgate, and more recently discovered papyri portions of the New Testament dating to the end of the first century, we have such a huge body of manuscripts for checking the integrity of the different copies we have great assurance that we have an accurate portrayal of the originals. As the late Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, formerly director and primary librarian of the British Museum put it: “The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible.” (see endnote 6).

So the New Testament documents pass the first test with flying colors. To reject the accuracy of the New Testament on bibliographical grounds would be to, as John W. Montgomery puts it “let all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament” (see endnote 7). To put this in simpler terms, the New Testament writings are more reliable than those used to compose the facts in our public school’s books on Greek and Roman history.

The Internal Evidence Test

This test simply examines the documents in question to find if there are any internal contradictions that detract from the documents’ reliability. In this process scholars begin by giving the documents in question the benefit of the doubt. We do not assume that they are historically incorrect but examine if we can catch them disagreeing with themselves. Do the four Gospel accounts draw conflicting pictures of who Christ was or of the events they portray? Are there contradictions in the teachings written in Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles? Also, what is written in the documents that lends to their credibility?

In the New Testament we find an amazingly coherent body of writings considering its books were penned by different individuals from different locations and during different decades. There are no significant contradictions in historical accounts or in doctrine. Granted, there are tensions, but these ought not to be considered out and out contradictions. Citing Robert Horn: “difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems do not constitute errors. This is not to minimise the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective.” (see endnote 8).

In support of the accounts of Christ’s actions and teachings are the claims in the Gospels to be first hand accounts. Both Matthew and John were witnesses to the events they recorded. The importance of this cannot be minimized. Very few historians today report events that they were witnesses to. Also, Mark was a close companion and disciple of Peter who was also a witness to the events written in Mark’s Gospel. And Luke, though not an eye witness to the events in Christ’s life is still considered to be the consummate historian of the group. In the beginning of his account he states that he had himself “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). More will be said about Luke’s reputation among scholars in the next section.

The New Testament writings are sources all written in the first century. From the end(?) of Christ’s ministry to the writing of the Gospels there is only and approximate 30 year interval for Mark, 50 for Luke, 50 for Matthew, and 60 for John. Again, these are not unreasonable gaps compared to other historical works of even modern times. And keep in mind that during the 30 to 60 year gap the disciples spent their lives as experts teaching about all that they had seen and been taught during their three year period of spending all their time with Jesus. This was not foggy material in their minds when they wrote it down. Rather it was material that they had been exercising their expertise over for many years. Again, to put this argument in simpler terms, the writings of the new Testament come from eye witnesses and writers with first hand accounts available to them. This is better than many of the authors of our school’s history books can claim.

The External Evidence Test

In the external evidence test we look to other historical materials to judge the reliability of the documents in question. Here also the New Testament finds a wealth of support. Much of this support comes from extra-biblical writers.

Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (AD 130) and a man who had personal contact with the Apostle John wrote: The Elder (John) used to say this also: Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that (Peter) mentioned, whether the sayings or doings of Christ… (see endnote 9)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 180) wrote: so firm is the ground on which these Gospels rests, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents] each one of them endeavors to establish his own particular doctrine. (see endnote 10) But not all the ancient writers that give support to the

Christian writings were Christian. In the rabbinical writings of the Talmud there is startling support to the claims in the Gospels about Jesus. In the Talmud there are writings about the false teacher Jesus of Nazareth who performed miracles! They attest to these sorcery on Christ’s part but the important point is that they did not even attempt to discount that Christ was a worker of miracles (see endnote 11).

The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century writes of Jesus: And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He lead away many Jews, and also many Greeks. This man was said to be the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who loved him at first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him: and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. (see endnote 12) Archeology also has yielded much evidence supporting the New

Testament accounts. One discovery of special importance is the “Nazareth Inscription”. This is a slab of white marble found in Nazareth and dated to the first century. No other inscription like it is found in any other Roman province. The content of the inscription says it all: Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors… If, however any man lay information that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places… against such a one I order that a trial be instituted… In the case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation or sepulture. (see endnote 13)

It would appear that there was some unique difficulty of disappearing bodies (at least one) in Nazareth in the first century. It was significant enough for the Romans to issue this edict to prevent it from happening again. This does not prove that Jesus rose from the dead but it may well be an indicator of the mayhem produced by the unaccountability of his body three days after burial.

Other strong testimony to the historicity of the New Testament comes from Sir William Ramsay, regarded to be one of the greatest archaeologists to ever have lived. Ramsay originally sought to discount the writings of Luke in the Gospel and Acts as products of the second century. He was attacking the authorship and first century credibility of these writings. But the more Ramsay searched the more he found inescapable evidence that Luke’s writings were indeed accurate and authentic. Luke writes of places that had been lost to history and re-found. He time and time again refers to Roman magistrates by their correct name, title and time. As a direct result of what he found, Ramsay became a Christian. He enthusiastically states: Luke is an historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact and trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense… In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians. (see endnote 14)

It is important not to underestimate the weight of a the testimony of a critic of such high standing in his field who not only failed to refute the credibility of the New Testament, but became a Christian as a result of what he found when he critically searched.

And so the New Testament passes the third and final test. There is plentiful evidence from outside sources that supports the historical reliability of the New Testament.

Credibility of the New Testament Writers

In spite of the above evidence for the historicity of the New Testament, there are those who would attack the writers themselves to undermine the New Testament’s credibility. They are accused of delivering an unhistorical portrait of Jesus. They are accused of making up their accounts and putting their own words in Jesus’ mouth. This section will list several reasons why this is incredibly unlikely not to mention totally unfounded.

As eye witnesses, the Apostles must be given the benefit of the doubt. No man can come along with no evidence at all and accuse them of fraud. Their authority is higher than any man living today that would question them. They were there. We were not.

The testimonies of the Apostles are written in blood. Charlatans would never suffer the cruel and dreadful deaths of the Apostles for a lie. Their testimony must be regarded as testimony that literally stood up under torture. They were stoned, run out of cities, imprisoned, and eventually killed for the message they proclaimed. They could have ended their persecution at any time by fessing up to their lie. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

If the Apostles were going to falsely construct a messiah, surely they would not have constructed one like the biblical Jesus. He fit none of the Jewish expectations of what the Messiah would be. Surely they would have tried to give the people what they expected and hence a more believable deception. Also, if the writers were putting words into Jesus’ mouth, then why did they not have him make definitive statements that would have cleared up some of the internal struggles that the Church was going through at the time of writing (ie, circumcision for Gentile converts, works verses faith, etc.)?

The disciples could not have gotten away with making up miracles and teachings of Christ since all that he did he did publicly. Surely there were many who could have refuted any false claims about Jesus. But the accounts of the Gospels are of things that occurred among large gatherings. How would they have gotten away with it?

There are those who accuse the Gospel writers of collusion in their writings. That way they could have gotten together and laid a solid and cohesive foundation of lies about who Jesus was. But examination of the four different accounts shows that this is not at all supported. On the contrary there is strong support against this. For the four Gospels are not identical enough to be works of intentional collusion. For there are accounts that are told from different perspectives that lay out slightly different emphasis and detail. There is enough agreement among the Gospel accounts to determine that they are accurately portraying the same events. But there is enough minute and subtle difference in the way things are recorded that they are clearly not the product of four writers getting together to make sure they tell the same story. An illustration of this principal: When police take down the accounts from different witnesses of a crime, they look for enough similarity to prove accuracy. But they also look for enough similarity in how the accounts are told to tell if they are operating in collusion. The Gospel accounts are similar enough by far to testify to their accuracy and have enough variety of focus and detail to testify to being free of collusion.

The bottom line is that the New Testament writers were moral men who went to great lengths to insure the accuracy of what they wrote. They had only one reason to endure the persecution that they endured. They had only one reason to write the words that they wrote: the words were true.

Conclusion

But what is one to do with such evidence as the New Testament documents? Clearly, to accept their historicity can well raise a crisis in one’s life. The implications are unnerving. Just as C.S. Lewis was rattled by a conversation he overheard between a couple of fellow atheist Cambridge professors when one said to the other: “Funny thing about this resurrection thing: it actually appears to have really happened!” The one who discovers these facts is confronted with a Jesus that he can not ignore. He must make up his mind as how to respond to this Jesus of Nazareth. He can no longer regard him as just another great moral teacher. I can offer no better conclusion to this paper than a quote of C.S. Lewis from his book MERE CHRISTIANITY where the response that he made to these facts is made clear: I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ This is one thing that we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

ENDNOTES:

1. C. Sanders, INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH IN ENGLISH LITERARY HISTORY (New York: Macmillan, 1952), pp. 143ff (cited from Josh McDowell’s EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, p. 43).
2. John Warwick Montgomery, HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY (Minnesota: Bethany House, 1965), p. 27.
3. F. F. Bruce, THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE? (Illinois: Inter Varsity, 1983), pp 16,17.
4. Josh McDowell, EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT (Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), pp. 47,48.
5. Bruce, p. 17.
6. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, THE BIBLE AND ARCHEOLOGY (New York and London: Harper, 1940), pp. 288,289.
7. Montgomery, p. 29.
8. McDowell, p. 64.
9. Ibid., p.66.
10. Ibid.
11. Bruce, pp. 100,101.
12. Ibid., p. 108.
13. E. M. Blaiklock, THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Michigan: Zondervan, 1970), p. 76.
14. Clifford A. Wilson, ROCKS, RELICS, AND BIBLICAL RELIABILITY (Michigan: Zondervan, 1977), p.114.
15. C. S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY (New York: Macmillan,