RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RECORDS
Although the above list of hostile and Jewish witnesses proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available to those interested in this topic. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the other 23 books that form the New Testament, provide more information about Jesus than any other source(s) available. But may these records be viewed as historical evidence, or are they instead writings whose reliability pales in comparison to other types of historical documentation? Blomberg has explained why the historical question of the Gospels, for example, must be considered.
Many who have never studied the gospels in a scholarly context believe that biblical criticism has virtually disproved the existence [of ChristKB]. An examination of the gospels historical reliability must therefore precede a credible assessment of who Jesus was (1987, p. xx).
But how well do the New Testament documents compare with additional ancient, historical documents? F.F Bruce examined much of the evidence surrounding this question in his book, The New Testament DocumentsAre They Reliable? As he and other writers (e.g., Metzger, 1968, p. 36; Geisler and Brooks, 1990, p. 159) have no-ted, there are 5,366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament in existence today, in whole or in part, that serve to corroborate the accuracy of the New Testament. The best manuscripts of the New Testament are dated at roughly A.D. 350, with perhaps one of the most important of these being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was purchased by the British from the Soviet Government in 1933 (Bruce, 1953, p. 20). Additionally, the Chester Beatty papyri, made public in 1931, contain eleven codices, three of which contain most of the New Testament (including the Gospels). Two of these codices boast of a date in the first half of the third century, while the third slides in a little later, being dated in the last half of the same century (Bruce, 1953, p. 21). The John Rylands Library boasts of even earlier evidence. A papyrus codex containing parts of John 18 dates to the time of Hadrian, who reigned from A.D. 117 to 138 (Bruce, 1953, p. 21).
Other attestation to the accuracy of the New Testament documents can be found in the writings of the so-called apostolic fathersmen who wrote primarily from A.D. 90 to 160 (Bruce, 1953, p. 22). Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius (writing before the close of the second century) all provided citations from one or more of the Gospels (Guthrie, 1990, p. 24). Other witnesses to the early authenticity of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions, which consist of the text of the New Testament translated into different languages. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the most ancient, being dated from the middle of the second century (Bruce, 1953, p. 23).
The available evidence makes it clear that the Gospels were accepted as authentic by the close of the second century (Guthrie, p. 24). They were complete (or substantially complete) before A.D. 100, with many of the writings circulating 20-40 years before the close of the first century (Bruce, 1953, p. 16). Linton remarked concerning the Gospels:
A fact known to all who have given any study at all to this subject is that these books were quoted, listed, catalogued, harmonized, cited as authority by different writers, Christian and Pagan, right back to the time of the apostles (1943, p. 39).
Such an assessment is absolutely correct. In fact, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. There are only 643 copies of Homers Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece. No one doubts the text of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. To have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within 70 years of their writing is nothing short of amazing (Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 159-160).
Someone might allege that the New Testament documents cannot be trusted because the writers had an agenda. But this in itself does not render what they said untruthful, especially in the light of corroborating evidence from hostile witnesses. There are other histories that are accepted despite their authors agendas. An agenda does not nullify the possibility of accurate historical knowledge.
In his work, The New Testament DocumentsAre They Reliable?, Bruce offered more astounding comparisons. Livy wrote 142 books of Roman history, of which a mere 35 survive. The 35 known books are made manifest due to some 20 manuscripts, only one of which is as old as the fourth century. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh. The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation. Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals (Bruce, 1953, pp. 20-21). Bruce thus declared: It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians (1953, p. 19). As Linton put it:
There is no room for question that the records of the words and acts of Jesus of Galilee came from the pens of the men who, with John, wrote what they had heard and seen and their hands had handled of the Word of life (1943, pp. 39-40).
CONCLUSION
When someone asks the question, Is the life of Jesus Christ a historic event?, he or she must remember that If we maintain that the life of our Lord is not a historical event, we are landed in hopeless difficulties; in consistency, we shall have to give up all ancient history and deny that there ever was such an event as the assassination of Julius Caesar (Monser, 1961, p. 377).
Faced with such overwhelming evidence, it is unwise to reject the position that Jesus Christ actually walked the streets of Jerusalem in the first century. As Harvey has remarked, there are certain facts about Jesus that are attested by at least as much reliable evidence as are countless others taken for granted as historical facts known to us from the ancient world. But lest I be accused of misquoting him, let me point out that Harvey went on to say, It can still be argued that we can have no reliable historical knowledge about Jesus with regard to anything that really matters (1982, p. 6).
Harvey could not deny the fact that Jesus lived on this Earth. Critics do not like having to admit it, but they cannot successfully deny the fact that Jesus had a greater impact on the world than any single life before or after. Nor can they deny the fact that Jesus died at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Harvey and others can say only that such facts do not really matter. I contend that the facts that establish the existence of Jesus Christ of Nazareth really do matter. As Bruce stated, The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message (1953, p. 122). While Paul was on trial before King Agrippa, he said to Festus: For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner (Acts 26:26).
As the earliest apologists of Christianity welcomed a full examination of the credentials of the message that they preached, so do we today. These credentials have been weighed in the balance and not found wanting. The simple fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ did exist and live among men.
It is impossible to say that no one has the right to be an agnostic. But no one has the right to be an agnostic till he has thus dealt with the question, and faced this fact with an open mind. After that, he may be an agnosticif he can (Anderson, 1985, p. 12).
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.N.D. (1969),
Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale).
Anderson, Norman (1985),
Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), second edition.
Barker, Dan (1992),
Losing Faith in Faith (Minneapolis, MN: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Beare, Francis Wright (1962),
The Earliest Records of Jesus (New York: Abingdon).
Blomberg, Craig L. (1987),
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Bruce, F.F. (1953),
The New Testament DocumentsAre They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fourth edition.
Bruce, F.F. (1967),
The New Testament DocumentsAre They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fifth edition.
Chapman, Colin (1981),
The Case for Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Daniel-Rops, Henri, (1969), Silence of Jesus Contemporaries,
The Sources for the Life of Christ, ed. Henri Daniel-Rops (New York: Hawthorn).
Durant, Will, ed. (1932),
On the Meaning of Life (New York: Long and Smith).
Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990),
When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Guthrie, Donald (1990),
New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Habermas, Gary R. (1996),
The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Harvey, A.E. (1982),
Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Horne, Thomas H. (1841),
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1970 reprint.
Jackson, Wayne (1991), Josephus and the Bible [Part II]
Reason & Revelation, 11:29-32, August.
Josephus, Flavius (1957 reprint),
The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whitson (Philadelphia, PA: John Whitson).
Josephus, Flavius (1988 reprint),
Josephus: The Essential Writings, trans. Paul L Maier (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel).
Kähler, Martin (1896),
The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress), 1964 reprint.
Key, Howard Clark (1970),
Jesus in History (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
Linton, Irwin H. (1943),
A Lawyer Examines the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), sixth edition.
Meier, John P. (1990), Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 52:76-99.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968),
The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).
Monser, J.W. (1961),
An Encyclopedia on the Evidences; or Masterpieces of Many Minds (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rajak, Tessa (1984),
Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).
Sanders, E.P. (1993),
The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Lane-Penguin).
Schweitzer, Albert. (1964),
The Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Macmillan).
Suetonius (1957 reprint),
The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (London: Penguin).
Schaff, Philip & N.M. Roussel (1868),
The Romance of M. Renan and the Christ of the Gospels (New York: Carlton & Lanahan).
Tacitus, Cornelius P. (1952 reprint),
The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago, IL: William Benton), Great Books of the Western World Series, vol. 15.
Thompson, Bert (1994), Famous Enemies of ChristAncient and Modern,
Reason & Revelation, 14:1-7, January.
Wells, H.G. (1931),
Outline of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind (Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing).
Wilken, Robert L. (1990), The Piety of the Persecutors,
Christian History, 9:16.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1995), Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?,
Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
(Finished)
