Challenges
Skeptics are quick to assume that the Bible is nothing more than a man-made creation.
According to Bill Nye, we should not trust some ancient text that has been re-translated many times, over thousands of years, into American English. (2014 Creation Debate)
Jesus never claimed to be God and his disciples misunderstood what he taught.
Over the centuries legends and myths were added to the Bible.
The Bible is just a book written by imperfect men with an agenda.
The Gospels were written long after the events described and not by any eye witnesses.
But are these assertions actually true or not?
Future blogs will dig further into topics such as:
Reliability and Authority of Scripture
Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?
Biblical Inerrancy vs. infallibility (the ICBI statement)
But for now, let's consider how we got the NT writings, and whether or not what we have accurately reflects the beliefs and teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
Historical Reliability of the Gospels
This is an image of P52 - a fragment of John dated at 100-150 A.D.
The NT documents are the best attested documents of antiquity in terms of total number of manuscripts. For example, there are 10X more than the runner-up, Homer.
About 1000 times more than average Greco-Roman author: 5800+ Greek manuscripts, 10000+ Latin/other, million+ quotes from church fathers - While some are a verse or 2, the avg. size of a NT manuscript is 450 pages!
The interval of time between the original authorship and the date of the earliest NT manuscript copies is extremely short.
The historic statements made about Jesus by ancient non-Christian authors fit well with the Gospel record.
The authors of the four Gospels were either eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life themselves, or were closely associated with eyewitnesses.
The Gospel writers intended to convey (and were capable of conveying) historical and factual information about Jesus, and the historical content of their writings has been confirmed to a significant degree.
The apostles credibility as truth-tellers is greatly strengthened when one recognizes they had little to gain and almost everything to lose in proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Early Dating of the Gospels
There are good reasons to believe that the Gospels were written within the lifetime of eye-witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. Apologist J. Warner Wallace has an excellent analysis of this and concludes that the evidence shows that the gospels likely were written prior to 55 A.D. One line of evidence is from apparent quotes of Luke's writings by Paul (between 48-60 A.D.). For example:
Luke's Gospel says:
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:19-20)
While Paul says:
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread ; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood… (1 Cor. 11:23-26) (written 53-57 A.D.)
Hence, Luke's gospel (or at least a common source) was in existence before Paul wrote his letters. Similar arguments can be made for the other gospels as well. Even John can reasonably be viewed as having written Revelation prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Myth or Fact?
Because of the early emergence of the Gospels, and the sources behind them, myths and legends did not have sufficient time to develop and be recorded in their accounts.
The theory that the Gospels are myth is only plausible if several generations existed over which mythology concerning Jesus could grow.
The apostles of Jesus recognized the difference between myth and factual eyewitness testimony, and they solemnly asserted that they were eyewitnesses of historical events.
If the Gospel writers had departed from historical fact (either by exaggeration or outright invention), hostile witnesses familiar with the events of Jesus’ life could have exposed them.
The Gospel stories do not correspond in style or in content with other known mythical writings.
The arguments for rejecting the Gospels as history are circular. (E.g. anti-supernatural bias and presuppositions)
In his book, Cold-Case Christianity, J. Warner Wallace shows that we have good reason to trust that the Bible faithfully records what the disciples originally wrote. He does this by showing the "Chain of Custody" for three lines of teaching:
(John) Mark (an associate of Peter) - author of the Gospel of Mark
The Apostle John - author of the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation
The Apostle Paul - wrote many books/letters of the New Testament
All three of these can be traced through writings and quotations from early church fathers up through 350 A.D. and beyond, where we have the Codex Sinaiticus and the Council of Laodicea. So we have confidence that what we have today is actually what they taught and believed about Jesus.
What About the OT?
The 39 books of the OT consist of Hebrew writings, broadly: The Law of Moses, Books of History, The Major/Minor Prophets, and the Poetry and Wisdom books.
Jesus affirmed the OT as coming from the mouth of the Lord.
Paul viewed these as the very words of God.
So, if we have good reason to believe what the NT has to say about Jesus, then we can also be confident of the OT documents as well.
Takeaways
There are good reasons to trust the reliability of the NT documents.
If we can trust what they say, then we have good reason to trust what they say about Jesus.
If we can trust what they say about Jesus, then we have to deal with the implication of a man who claimed to be the Son of God.
