Argument for New Testament Reliability

My previous blog argues that it is reasonable to conclude that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts were written early; that these New Testament documents were written during the lifetime of the eye-witnesses. Here is the link:  http://natureandscripture.blogspot.com/2017/05/argument-for-early-dating-of-christian.html In order to make a reasonable argument that the New Testament documents are reliable, it will also be necessary to show two more details:  1. Outside corroboration of the contents and 2. Consistency of the message over time.

As for outside corroboration, there are at least 11 Non-Christian Sources that mention Jesus within 150 years of his life; many of these sources are anti-Christian who are attempting to explain away the events surrounding the resurrection.  J. Warner Wallace has written about these 11 sources and what they say about Jesus:  http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

Curiously, over the same time period, there are only 9 non-Christian literary sources that mention Tiberius Caesar! This number is debated, but the point is that the number of ancient sources for Jesus and the emperor Tiberius Caesar are similar.  Most importantly, you can get almost all the facts about Jesus from these 11 non-Christian and hostile sources. We therefore have evidence from non-Christian sources, outside the Bible, to corroborate the story of Jesus. 

Archeology is another outside source that corroborates the New Testament writings. Luke, for example, “displays intricate knowledge of local names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.”[1] Luke goes to a lot of trouble to list places, dates, and names of people. By including historical people and events, Luke gives skeptics opportunities to refute what he wrote.  If he were inventing a story, why include specifics that could be checked out historically? The accuracy of these historical specifics recorded in Luke continue to amaze historians.  For example, all eleven historical figures named in the first three chapters of Luke’s gospel have been confirmed by non-Christian sources and/or archaeology.[2]

In fact, the entire New Testament has been proven to be historically accurate.  “The New Testament writers put historical crosshairs into their accounts by referencing real historical figures and their doings. All in all, there are at least thirty characters in the New Testament who have been confirmed historically by archaeology or non-Christian sources.”[3]

A third way to check the reliability of the New Testament writers is to look at what the students of the eye-witnesses taught and wrote. If what the students wrote is the same as the teachers, then we can show that the story did not change or evolve as time passed. Here is an article, also by J. Warner Wallace, explaining this “chain of custody.” http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/why-i-know-the-story-of-jesus-wasnt-changed-over-time/

In his book, Cold Case Christianity, Detective Wallace explains other similar chains from Peter to Eusebius and from Paul thru all the early bishops and papal leaders in Rome to the time of Justyn Martyr and Tatian.  The conclusion is the same:  the custodial sequences acknowledge the eye witness accounts existed, were treated as sacred scripture from a very early time, and were handed down with care from one generation to the next.  The story of Jesus did not evolve, nor was miraculous theology added later.

The New Testament chain of custody preserved the primacy of and sacred importance of the eyewitness documents and delivered them faithfully to those who would later identify them publicly in the councils that established our present canon of Scripture.  These councils did not create the canon or the current version of Jesus we know so well; they simply acknowledged the canon and description of Jesus that had been provided by the eyewitnesses.[4]

At least 11 Non-Christian Sources mention Jesus within 150 years of his life.  The chain of custody, which tracks the teachings of the original apostles through their students, shows that these teachings did not change or evolve. The historical accuracy of the New Testament writings is impeccable. The New Testament was written early, has not changed, and is corroborated by outside sources.  It is reasonable to conclude that the New Testament is reliable.

---

[1] Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, page 256

[2] ibid, page 262

[3] idid, pages 269-270

[4] J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity, David C. Cook Publishing, 2013, page 228

Argument for the Early Dating of Christian Theology and Christian Writings

Two accusations by skeptics regarding the Christian faith are that the miraculous aspects of the life of Jesus were invented late and that the written accounts we now have in the Bible were also written later than the lifetimes of the supposed authors.  It is reasonable to conclude that neither of these accusations are true. The theology that Jesus died for our sins and then rose from the dead is present in the Christian community within 4 years and written down within 17 years of the death of Jesus.  Starting with two epistles written by Paul we can date the doctrine of the resurrection to very soon after of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is the overwhelming conclusion by ancient historians – even Christian skeptics - that Paul did actually write these letters.  1^st Corinthians was written by Paul around 53 AD, while Galatians was written sometime before 57 AD.  The dating of Jesus’s death is debated, but it is either 30 AD or 33 AD.  Using Paul’s writings, the logic goes as follows:[1]

1.     We know from many sources that Paul dies around 65 AD, 32-35 years after the crucifixion (yac)

2.     1^st Corinthians was written around 53 AD, 20-23 years yac.

3.     Paul went to Corinth around 51 AD (18-21 yac) and wrote down what he was taught. “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve.”[2]

4.     Galatians records that when Paul became transformed, he went first to Arabia, then 3 years later went to Jerusalem to see Cephas and James.[3]  He then goes back to Jerusalem 14 years later.[4]  51-14 = 37 AD (4-7 yac) when Paul first went to the apostles and “received” the ancient creed.

5.     Paul went to Arabia for three years right after his conversion.  37-3 = 34 AD (1-3 yac). 

In about 34 AD there was already a robust doctrine of the resurrection.  This could be as early as 1 year after the crucifixion but no later than 3 years after.  Remember, some time had to elapse between the crucifixion and Paul’s conversion because Christians had to become problematic enough for the Jewish leaders (Saul) to track them down and kill them!  It is clear from uncontested letters written by an eye-witness that resurrection theology was present immediately after Jesus died.

What about the written documents?  As mentioned above, we know for sure that Paul wrote down a Christian creed in about 50 AD, so written documentation of Christian Theology was surely present within 20 years after the death of Jesus.  This is still well within the lifetimes of the eye-witnesses.  As it turns out, it is reasonable to think that it was written down by others at an even earlier time. (The following argument comes from J. Warner Wallace in Cold Case Christianity)[5]

1.     Nowhere in the New Testament (NT) is there any mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.  If you were writing the history of New York City would you leave out the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers?  You would if you were writing the history before September 2001!  This is the only explanation that makes sense; the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD is one of the most significant historical events in the first century!  Also, Jesus predicted it would happen!  If the gospel were invented later, why write that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and then not mention that it actually happened!  Conclusion:  All NT documents were written prior to 70 AD.

2.     NT does not mention the siege of Jerusalem at all.  The city of Jerusalem was under assault for three years prior to the temple being destroyed; this is also a significant historical event for the writers of the NT. Suffering and persecution are common themes in the NT writings, so why leave out a significant time of suffering and persecution?  Conclusion:  All NT documents were written before 67 AD.

3.     Luke does not mention the death of Paul, martyred in 62 AD, or the death of Peter, martyred in 65 AD. Paul and Peter are the two most prominent figures in the book of Acts; it would make no sense to leave out their deaths unless, of course, they weren’t dead yet! In fact, the book of Acts end with Paul under house arrest in Rome.  Conclusion:  All NT documents were written before 62 AD.

4.     Luke does not mention the death of James (brother of Jesus) martyred in 62 AD. Luke describes the deaths of Stephen and James (brother of John), so why leave out the killing of the brother of Jesus?

5.     According to Luke himself, Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts.[6] Conclusion: Luke’s gospel was written at least a few years before 62 AD.

6.     Paul quoted Luke’s gospel in his first letter to Timothy, written in 62 or 63 AD.[7] Paul wrote this as though Luke’s gospel was common knowledge and even referred to it as “Scripture.”

7.     Paul summarizes the gospel message in his letter to the Corinthians, written about 50 AD.[8]

8.     Paul mentions “Scripture” and quotes Luke’s gospel in his letter to the Corinthians, written about 50 AD.[9] Conclusion: Luke’s gospel was written, circulated, well-known and accepted as scripture by 50 AD. To be fair, let’s say it only took two years for Luke to write his gospel, have it circulated, and accepted as “Scripture.”  This puts the writing of Luke’s gospel at 48 AD.

9.     Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.[10]  350 verses from Mark appear in Luke’s gospel, while 250 verses from Matthew appear in Luke’s account.  Conclusion: Matthew and Mark were both written, circulated, and well-known much earlier than 48 AD.  We will use the same two years to provide enough time for Matthew and Mark to be written, circulated, and become well-known.  This puts the writing of Matthew and Mark at 46 AD.

Christian theology regarding the resurrection was robust immediately after the death of Jesus and accounts describing the events were written down - at the very latest - within 16 years of the death of Christ. Paul’s letters, Acts, Luke, Mark, and Matthew were all written in the lifetimes of eye-witnesses and circulated in the area were the crucifixion and resurrection occurred. It is reasonable to conclude that the Christian doctrine of the resurrection was not a late invention and that the written accounts of Jesus were written by eye witnesses to the actual events.

---

[1] I think I first heard this argument on Stand to Reason, but I can’t find the exact reference.

[2] 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

[3] Galatians 1:17-21

[4] Galatians 2:1

[5] J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity, David C. Cook Publishing, 2013

[6] Acts 1:1

[7] 1 Timothy 5:17-18

[8] 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

[9] 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

[10] Luke 1:1-4