BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE REVELATION
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than many theologians.
—F. F. BRUCE1
The Bible contains sixty-six books, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.2 The Old Testament covers a far longer time period than the New Testament—from the creation of the world until some four hundred years before Christ arrived. In it, God promises He will redeem fallen man through the Messiah, and the New Testament records God’s fulfillment of that promise and explains its significance.
The title “New Testament” derives from novum testamentum, the Latin translation of a Greek phrase meaning “new covenant.”3 We know this title was used at least as early as the fourth century AD because it’s found in fourth-century manuscripts called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD) includes the oldest complete copy of the New Testament and much of the Old Testament,4 while the Codex Vaticanus (325–350 AD) contains most of the New Testament and almost all the Old Testament.5
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND INSPIRATION
The twenty-seven books of the New Testament are called the New Testament “canon” to denote the books universally accepted by the Church as inspired by God. Bible scholar F. F. Bruce explains, “When we speak of the canon of scripture, the word ‘canon’ has a simple meaning. It means the list of books contained in scripture, the list of books recognized as worthy to be included in the sacred writings of a worshipping community. In a Christian context, we might define the word as ‘the list of the writings acknowledged by the Church as documents of the divine revelation.’”6
The word “canon” is derived from the Greek “kanon,” which refers to an architectural measuring rod. The term evolved to mean a criterion or standard used to measure an idea’s authenticity.7 The word’s first known use to describe the complete canon accepted today occurred in 367 AD in a letter by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.8 As applied to the Old and New Testament books, it means those writings accepted as authoritative.
But who decided which writings would be accepted as canonical? What standard did they use? Jesus wrote no books, but taught orally and by example.9 As shown throughout the New Testament, His followers and others recognized Him as divinely authoritative long before His words were written down, much less assimilated and officially canonized by the Church. For example, the officers who refused to arrest Jesus declare, “No one ever spoke like this man” (John 7:46). Similarly, Peter proclaims that Jesus spoke the words of eternal life (John 6:68).10 F. W. Beare notes that the Church had the essence of the New Testament canon before any of the books had been penned. After they were written down and began circulating in the churches, they were considered authoritative not as holy books as such, but as writings that contained the holy words of Jesus. “The authority of the words was primary;” writes Arthur G. Patzia, “that of the books was secondary and derivative.”11
Thus, to qualify as canonical, the books had to be closely associated with Christ’s apostles or prophets—either written by them or having their stamp of approval.12 Scripture affirms this by proclaiming the Church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Christ promised He would send the Holy Spirit, Who would teach them all things, bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (John 14:26), and “guide” them “into all the truth” (John 16:13).
The early Church took those words to heart. While the prophets had been silent since the close of the Old Testament period, the early Christian community believed another age of prophecy, promised by the Old Testament prophets (Mal. 4:5–6; Joel 2:28–29; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14), had begun, first through John the Baptist and Jesus, and then in the Church’s witness to the resurrected Lord (Acts 1:8).13
New Testament writers were aware their writings were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). He also tells the Thessalonians, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess. 2:13). Likewise, Peter informs his readers they have been “born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). As R. M. Raymer affirms, “This imperishable Word was the content of Peter’s preaching. His hearers must be affected by its life-changing power.”14
Divinely inspired, the New Testament writers confidently instructed the recipients of their missives to share them with other believers. Paul tells the Thessalonians, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thess. 5:27), and to the Colossians he says, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans” (Col. 4:16). John alludes to the inspiration of his Gospel when he writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (1 John 20:30–31). John revisits the theme in a more ominous form in the Book of Revelation: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (22:18–19). This stern warning is reminiscent of those in the Old Testament books of Deuteronomy—“You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it” (4:2)—and Proverbs—“Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (30:6).15
THE CHURCH DID NOT CREATE THE CANON
Some critics argue that the early Christian councils determined which books to include in the New Testament as essentially a top-down decision. However, as Josh McDowell observes, “The church did not create the canon; it did not determine which books would be called Scripture, the inspired Word of God. Instead, the church recognized, or discovered, which books had been inspired from their inception. . . . A book is not the Word of God because it is accepted by the people of God. Rather, it was accepted by the people of God because it is the Word of God.”16 F. F. Bruce states that the words of Jesus and His apostles were deemed to be equal in authority to the Old Testament scriptures. “Authority,” writes Bruce, “precedes canonicity; had the words of the Lord and his apostles not been accorded supreme authority, the written record of their words would never have been canonized.”17
The early Church had several incentives to formally canonize the inspired books. It had long used these books, which satisfied the Church’s worship, teaching, and missionary requirements,18 and since they were prophetic—spoken by God’s prophets—they had to be preserved. The Church also needed a complete collection of authoritative books to fight heresies, a problem that arose early in the Church’s history. Marcion, a notorious second-century heretic, rejected the entire New Testament except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s epistles. Montanus, in the latter half of the second century, taught that revelation was continuing during his time.19
Formalizing its canonical collection helped the Church combat these efforts to discredit the inspired works and enabled it to translate the Bible into different languages to spread the Word to other nations. Additionally, the persecutions of Christians by Roman Emperors Diocletian and Maximian in the early fourth century motivated the Church to settle on the canon because believers would not have risked severe punishment and even death to defend books they weren’t sure were scriptural.20
Dr. Norman Geisler acknowledges that the Church did not officially recognize the canon prior to the late fourth century, but contends the books nevertheless were widely recognized as authoritative. “As with the Old Testament books,” writes Geisler, “there is ample evidence available to confirm that the inspired books were received immediately as such, circulated, and even collected.” The New Testament process was complicated, however, because it was written over a period of fifty years by eight or nine authors writing to various individuals or churches in different locations.21
Many critics of Christianity argue that the New Testament Gospel was just one of many competing gospels and only prevailed because its adherents were superior evangelists, not because it is based on historical fact. One of these allegedly competing philosophies was Gnosticism, which held that some people had a special knowledge of the truth, and that man’s main spiritual problem was ignorance, not sin. Gnostics believed that the material world is evil and that Christ was not human so His crucifixion was illusory.22 While the ideas leading to Gnosticism initially appeared in the first century, however, the philosophy didn’t fully develop until the mid-to-late second century, so it couldn’t have competed with the New Testament Gospel, which was already established.23
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON AND THE ORAL TRADITION
The New Testament canon developed in stages. Before the New Testament books were written, the only written scriptures for Christians were the Old Testament books. But the apostles, teachers, missionaries, and others shared the apostles’ teachings about Jesus orally.24 Paul acknowledges as much when he says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve” (1 Cor. 15:3–5). Even liberal scholars believe that Paul’s testimony was part of an early Christian creed that developed between eighteen months and eight years after the resurrection.25
Paul’s passage cited above—“When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13)—shows the accepted authority of apostolic oral tradition and teaching by eyewitnesses to Christ’s life.26 “In fact, in the case of the gospels,” writes William Lane Craig, “it would be more accurate to speak of ‘oral history’ rather then ‘oral tradition,’ since the living eyewitnesses and apostles were still around.”27
Likewise, Paul tells the Corinthians, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). Luke states that he had prepared an orderly account of the narrative that “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered . . . to us” (Luke 1:2). These facts had been delivered orally among Jesus’ early followers.28
Obviously, the oral Gospel originated with Jesus, Who shocked the Jews with His level of scriptural understanding despite having no formal rabbinic training (John 7:15). Jesus taught through sayings and parables. These forms of communication were not introduced by Jesus but were rooted in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture, which readied His audience for these methods.29
Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace maintain that Christian orthodox teachings and traditions—doctrinal summaries, hymns, and sacraments that emphasize the Church’s core theology—were being passed on orally when the New Testament books were being written. They deny there were competing versions of the Gospel vying for prominence in the early churches. At the heart of these oral teachings was that Jesus was exalted—that He participated in creation and is the resurrected Redeemer, seated above all other spiritual forces, Who would return as Lord. Bock and Wallace conclude, “Our earliest Christian sources (from 49 through 95 or so) indicate that the picture of an exalted, enthroned Jesus was a given for the earliest church community in places as widespread as Jerusalem, Asia Minor, and Rome. Historically, there is no question that this emphasis on Jesus and his role in salvation is at the center of the texts that are our earliest sources of Christianity.”30
What about the reliability of these oral traditions? Let’s understand that Jesus’ followers lived in an oral culture in which people routinely memorized large chunks of material. The early witnesses to Jesus’ acts and sayings were skilled in conveying information verbally with great accuracy. But the New Testament writers didn’t just pass on any information no matter the source. Many of them were eyewitnesses or were writing on behalf of “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2).31 Those who passed on the word were highly motivated to be precise because they were communicating matters of the utmost importance originating from the most important person who ever lived.
This oral transmission of the Gospel likely continued even after the first books were written down and circulated. In the second century, Church father Eusebius reported that Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (125 AD), admitted he preferred oral communications about Jesus to written ones, “for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving.”32
By this oral tradition, or oral history, the Christians of the first two centuries understood the Old Testament writings as bearing witness to Christ.33 Also scholars have identified numerous creedal formulas, or teachings, the early Christians knew and shared about Jesus that predated the New Testament writings. Lee Strobel and Alex McFarland cite forty examples of such teachings:34
1. Jesus was really born in human flesh (Phil. 2:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 4:2).
2. Family line descended from David (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3–4; 2 Tim. 2:8).
3. Implication of His baptism (Rom. 10:9).
4. His word was preached (1 Tim. 3:16).
5. People believed in His message (1 Tim. 3:16).
6. Came from the town of Nazareth (Acts 2:22; 4:10; 5:38).
7. John preceded Jesus’ ministry (Acts 10:37; 13:24–25).
8. Jesus’ ministry began in Galilee (Acts 10:37).
9. Jesus’ ministry expanded to Judea (Acts 10:37).
10. Jesus performed miracles (Acts 2:22; 10:38).
11. Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies (Acts 2:25–31; 3:21–25; 4:11; 10:43; 13:27–37).
12. Jesus attended a dinner (1 Cor. 11:23).
13. This was on the evening of His betrayal (1 Cor. 11:23).
14. He gave thanks before this meal (1 Cor. 11:23).
15. Jesus shared bread and beverage (1 Cor. 11:23).
16. Jesus explained that the bread and drink represented His impending substitutionary death for sin (1 Cor. 11:23).
17. Jesus stood before Pilate (Acts 3:13; 13:28).
18. Jesus affirmed His identity as King of the Jews (1 Tim. 6:13).
19. Jesus was killed (Acts 3:13–15; 13:27–29).
20. Jesus died for humanity’s sin (1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 4:25; 1 Tim. 2:6).
21. This execution was carried out despite His righteous life (1 Pet. 3:18).
22. His crucifixion was specified as the mode of death (Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39).
23. His crucifixion was performed in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 10:39; 13:27).
24. His crucifixion was carried out by wicked men (Acts 2:23).
25. Jesus was buried (Acts 13:29).
26. After His death, Jesus resurrected (Acts 2:24, 31–32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30–37; 2 Tim. 2:8).
27. Jesus resurrected on the third day (Acts 10:40).
28. The risen Jesus appeared to His followers (Acts 13:31).
29. In His resurrected state, Jesus ate with His disciples (Acts 10:40–41).
30. His disciples were eyewitnesses of these events (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31).
31. After rising from the grave, Jesus ascended into heaven and was glorified and exalted (Acts 2:33; 3:21; 5:31; 1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:6).
32. The risen Jesus instructed that salvation be preached in His name (Acts 2:38–39; 3:19–23; 4:11–12; 5:32; 10:42–43; 13:26, 38–41).
33. The resurrection and subsequent events showed God’s approval of Jesus by validating His person and message (Acts 2:22–24, 36; 3:13–15; 10:42; 13:32–33; Rom. 1:3–4; 10:9–10).
34. Jesus is called “the Son of God” (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:3–4).
35. Jesus is called “Lord” (Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; 10:9; Phil. 2:11).
36. Jesus is called “Christ” or “Messiah” (Acts 2:36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10; 10:36; Rom. 1:4; Phil. 2:11; 2 Tim. 2:8).
37. Jesus is called “Savior” (Acts 5:31; 13:23).
38. Jesus is called “Prince” (Acts 5:31).
39. Jesus is called “the Holy and Righteous One” (Acts 2:27; 3:14; 13:35).
40. It is said that—regarding His essential nature—Jesus is God (see Phil. 2:6).35
The oral tradition, however, was not suitable for transmission of the Gospel message to the general public indefinitely in the same way a body of teaching was preserved in rabbinical schools, which trained students to learn and pass on their instruction “without losing a drop.”36 The Christian message was to be shared throughout the world, so it needed to be reduced to writing to be preserved and unchanged.37 David deSilva explains how the formation of a written record was largely inevitable:
Just as the Jewish Scriptures contained the texts that bore witness to the formation and living out of the first covenant at Sinai, so early Christians began to gather and collect the texts that bore witness to the new covenant in Christ, all the more as the living voice of the apostolic witnesses became less accessible. It was only natural that the books that preserved this apostolic witness and that spoke to the Christian community’s central questions and concerns as it dedicated itself to the promises and obligations of this new covenant would rise to a position of authority and centrality in that community.38
FOUR GOSPELS, LIKE FOUR DIRECTIONS OF THE WIND
The New Testament reports that once the messages were written down they were read with scriptural authority and circulated among the churches. As noted, Paul instructs the Thessalonians to read his letter “to all the brothers” (1 Thess. 5:27), and John, in Revelation, commands believers to “read aloud the words of this prophecy” (1:3), relating that he has been directed to send his written prophecy to the seven churches (1:11). Likewise, Paul tells the Colossians to ensure his letter is read to the Laodicean Church (Col. 4:16). These passages indicate the apostles intended their writings to be read beyond their immediate addressees and to be accepted as authoritative.39 Peter endorses Paul’s letters as scriptural in warning that some seek to twist his difficult writings (2 Peter 3:15–16). Paul quotes from Luke’s Gospel, treating it as equal in authority to the Old Testament (1 Tim. 5:8).40 This evidence shows that several centuries before the Church officially canonized the New Testament books, many were acknowledged as Scripture and read in churches.
Before the end of the first century, all the New Testament books had been written.41 The early Church fathers referred to all the books within a century of when they were written, and almost all of them were recognized as inspired and authorized by the Church by the end of the second century.42 Indeed, “In letters written between 95 AD and 110 AD,” note Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, “three early church fathers—Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp—quoted passages out of 25 of the 27 books in the New Testament.”43 The four Gospels and all of Paul’s thirteen epistles had been accepted in some parts of the Church as authoritative witnesses of apostolic teaching by 130 AD, and by the end of the second century these books were accepted as Scripture, equal in authority to the Old Testament. Church Father Irenaeus, around 180 AD, named twenty-one of the twenty-seven New Testament books as being used by the churches. He maintained there must be only four Gospels, just as there are four directions of the wind.44
Other New Testament books were accepted later,45 and by 230 AD, based on the work of Origen,46 there was general agreement about the great majority of New Testament writings, though doubt remained about certain books, some of which were later included and others excluded. The Book of Hebrews, for example, remained in question for a time largely because of uncertainty about its author.47 Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his Church History, written in the early fourth century, mentioned all twenty-seven New Testament books, but acknowledged that some had been “spoken against”: James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Any such doubts disappeared by 367 AD, when Athanasius authoritatively listed the twenty-seven books as canonical.48
The Church officially recognized all the New Testament books in the councils of Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD.49 But as we’ve seen, nearly all the New Testament books were widely copied, circulated, used, and authorized by the Church during the first four centuries and well before the final canonical list was formalized.50
HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
As I wrote in Jesus on Trial, abundant evidence supports the reliability of the Bible. I want to briefly review this evidence to establish that the topic of this book—the New Testament’s account of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ—is in fact true. The remarkable unity of the entire Bible, both within and between the Old and New Testaments, is a powerful apologetic, as are the hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that are fulfilled in the New Testament. The more we read the Bible, the more we discover its intrinsic inspiration.
The New Testament’s historical reliability is shown in the authenticity of the New Testament documents, the credibility of its writers, non-Christian sources corroborating Jesus’ existence, and archaeological evidence substantiating the Bible’s historical record. No matter what measure is used, no other ancient document is nearly as reliable as the New Testament.
First, let’s revisit the popular modern fiction, alluded to in Chapter 1, that many different versions of Christianity were circulating in the first century, and the New Testament Gospels just happened to prevail over other credible accounts. New Testament historian Craig Evans flatly rejects the claim, as do many other scholars. The early Christians had disagreements, but not over such fundamental questions as whether Jesus was the divine Messiah or whether He was crucified for our sins and resurrected. The bizarre ideas of the Gnostics and other heretical sects celebrated today by popular books and movies are mythical speculations unsupported by the evidence. The Gnostics engaged in most of their mischief in the second century, not the first. Evans notes that while liberal scholars are “trying to smuggle into the first century a mystical, Gnostic understanding of God and the Christian life . . . first century Christians had never heard of these things.”51 He observes simply, “That Jesus is the Messiah, he’s God’s Son, he fulfills the Scriptures, he died on the cross, and thereby saved humanity, he rose from the dead—these core issues were not open for discussion.”52
There were a number of “apocryphal Gospels,” many written in the second century. Some are attributed to particular apostles such as Peter, Thomas, and even Judas. While many today are eager to embrace them—and anything else that purports to debunk the biblical Jesus—most are based mainly on the four canonical Gospels or were spawned by certain speculative and visionary theological schools of the second, third, and fourth centuries. Serious scholarship gives little credence to these books as containing any historical value, and the writings were never included in any authoritative lists of early Christian books.53 Biblical scholar John P. Meier describes the whole lot of these non-canonical works as “a field of rubble, largely produced by the pious and wild imaginations of certain second-century Christians.”54
The historicity of Jesus Christ and the historical reliability of the Gospels wasn’t always disputed, but beginning in the late eighteenth century, liberal scholars began to construct alternative versions of Jesus’ life—His identity, character, motivations, and nature—ideas Albert Schweitzer calls the “fictitious lives of Jesus.”55 Some argued that Jesus staged the miracles He appeared to perform. Others claimed He healed with medicines, not through supernatural powers. Some contended He didn’t die on the cross but “swooned” and that the Essenes nursed Him back to health so He could visit His followers in the guise of resurrection appearances.56 Grounded in raw supposition rather than evidence, these hypotheses gained little scholarly attention.57
In the nineteenth century, Protestant liberal critics concocted many more alternative biographies of Jesus that differed markedly from the Gospel accounts. In these, Jesus was portrayed as uniquely moral but not divine—he was a mere human who did not actually perform miracles.58 Famed twentieth-century apologist C. S. Lewis ridicules the flagrant self-contradictions of these theories. Jesus, says Lewis, could not have been a great moral teacher and merely a human being, for He plainly asserted His own deity, which means that if He wasn’t divine, He must have been either a liar or a lunatic. “Let us not,” cautions Lewis, “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.”59
Indeed, too many people, especially in our post-modern era, overlook or reject the uniqueness of Christianity’s truth claims. It reminds me of a short story nicely illustrating the point, attributed to R. J. Morgan, who writes:
Auguste Comte, the French philosopher, and Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish essayist were deeply engaged in conversation. Comte said he was going to start a new religion that would supplant the religion of Christ. It was to have no mysteries and was to be as plain as the multiplication table; its name was to be positivism. “Very good, Mr. Comte,” Carlyle replied, “very good. All you will need to do will be to speak as never a man spake, and live as never a man lived, and be crucified, and rise again the third day, and get the world to believe that you are still alive. Then your religion will have a chance to get on.”60
FANTASTICAL QUESTS FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Despite scholarship debunking these myths, so-called “quests for the historical Jesus” continue to proliferate, generating reappraisals of the accuracy of the biblical record as well as differing accounts of their reliability and of who Jesus actually was.61 In our modern era, another such “quest” has surfaced in popular literature.
Novelist Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code sparked renewed interest in this question and titillated skeptics’ itching ears. It is remarkable how much credence is accorded to this account, which is counter to the evidence and relies on wild speculation—compared to the doubt skeptics voice about the Gospels, whose reliability is supported by copious evidence. Brown’s work asserts that Christ’s deity became Christian doctrine only because Church leaders, on a close vote, affirmed it in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, where they also allegedly decided on the biblical canon.62 Brown attempts to show that the true story of Jesus is not in the New Testament but in Gnostic writings, which depict Jesus as a mere human being who married Mary Magdalene and sired children.63
As we’ve seen, however, the early Church accepted Jesus’ divinity from the start because that is what the apostles taught from the beginning and what the New Testament documents attest. Yes, Church leaders met at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD at the direction of Roman Emperor Constantine, in part to address the claims of Arius and his followers that the Father created the Son and thus the Son had not always existed and was inferior to the Father.64 The Council overwhelmingly rejected this heresy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which affirmed Jesus’ deity, His co-equality with the Father, and His being “one essence with the Father.” The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD reaffirmed this conclusion.65 It didn’t even vote on the question of Christ’s deity, and when more than three hundred Church leaders present were asked to sign off on the creed, only two refused. As Richard Howe observes, that “is far from the ‘close vote’ that The Da Vinci Code claims.”66 This heresy was not some long-standing controversy within the Church—Arius was the first to introduce it there. It may have existed outside the Church, though there is little information on the subject.67
As for Brown’s claim that the Nicean Council created the biblical canon, we’ve already seen that the early Church accepted the mainstream doctrines about Jesus long before the Church officially recognized the canon. The four Gospels (and the great majority of the other New Testament books) were well established and accepted as authoritative long before the Council.68 Similarly spurious are Brown’s fantastic theories that the Gnostics told the true story of Jesus and that He was married, let alone to Mary Magdalene.69
We should also acknowledge the self-authenticating nature of the New Testament. Thomas Griffith observes that it is common knowledge that in the world’s entire corpus of literature, past and present, “there is no trace of the picture of a perfect character. Poets, novelists, dramatists, philosophers, essayists, have given the world wonderful creations and yet no writer has ever attempted to portray a perfect man or woman. . . . And yet in the Gospels, written by ordinary men, not literary geniuses, we have a perfect character depicted. How did the Evangelists accomplish what no writer has ever attempted with success?”70 In other words, is it more likely that these four men created a literary miracle or that their presentation of Christ is true?
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS
As discussed in Jesus on Trial, the authenticity of the New Testament documents is shown by dating the original writings—none of which still exist—and determining how much time passed between those writings and the events they record, assessing how many copies we have of those writings and examining them for accuracy, measuring the time gap between the original writings and the oldest copies we have, and then comparing our findings with those of manuscripts of ancient secular history.71
Most scholars—liberal and conservative—agree Christ died between 30 and 33 AD, and that all the Gospel accounts were written in the first century between twenty-five and fifty years after those dates.72 This is a short period considering this was an oral culture in which people would have memorized these accounts before reducing them to writing.73 Many scholars believe the Gospel writers may have referred to earlier written accounts for some of their material.74 As noted, Christians agreed on and shared much creedal information about Jesus well before the New Testament writings, and many references to this “Jesus tradition” appear in Paul’s epistles, some of which predate the writing of the Gospels.75 In fact, Christianity was accepted by thousands of people before a single word of the New Testament had been written because Christianity is based on historical events—the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
The original twenty-seven New Testament manuscripts probably perished within decades of their composition because the writers didn’t write on bricks, rocks, or wooden tablets, but on paper—Egyptian papyrus (see John’s reference to his writing tools in 2 John 12; 3 John 13; and Paul’s similar reference in 2 Cor. 3:3).76 What remains are handwritten copies (more accurately, copies of copies) called manuscripts, as there was no other means of producing copies for more than a thousand years after the originals were written.77 Inevitably, mistakes occurred in the copying process, no matter how meticulous and skilled the scribes were. To evaluate the accuracy of manuscript copies for the New Testament writings or any other ancient books, textual critics study the differences in wording to determine the precise composition of the original manuscript. This is not practical if few manuscript copies exist, and the more the critics have, the more accurately they can pinpoint the original text. This is because the more copies that agree with each other—especially if they are from different locations—the more equipped they are to cross-check and identify the text of the original document.78 New Testament manuscripts are so plentiful that, according to Professor Craig Blomberg, textual criticism enables us to reconstruct what the New Testament authors wrote with a high degree of accuracy.79
The New Testament was translated from early times into many languages, including Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and Arabic. In total, there are more than 25,000 New Testament manuscripts in existence, some 5,800 of which are in Greek, which range from the early second century to the sixteenth century. Though we don’t have a complete manuscript dated before the third century, many fragments exist that include a substantial amount of the New Testament.80 Even if all these manuscripts were destroyed, almost half of the New Testament could be reconstructed just by using the million-plus New Testament quotations in the writings of the early Church fathers.81 The number of extant New Testament manuscripts dwarfs those of ancient secular writings. There are one thousand times as many existing manuscripts of the New Testament (25,000) than of the average classical author’s works (between ten and twenty).82 Homer’s Iliad and Demosthenes are exceptions, but there is still no comparison, as there are only about 1,800 manuscripts of the Iliad, less than 10 percent of the New Testament number.
Many ancient documents don’t have enough manuscripts to allow us to compare their accuracy to that of the New Testament, but where sufficient manuscripts exist, critics have concluded the New Testament manuscripts are exceedingly more reliable—99.5 percent accuracy—compared to the Iliad at 95 percent or the ancient Indian work Mahabharata at 90 percent.83
Apart from the comparisons, what about the errors in the New Testament? Aren’t they terribly problematic for those who maintain the Bible is inerrant? In a word, no. As Carl F. H. Henry explains, “Inerrancy pertains only to the oral or written proclamation of the originally inspired prophets and apostles. Not only was their communication of the Word of God efficacious in teaching the truth of revelation, but their transmission of that Word was error-free.” “Inerrancy,” writes Henry, “does not extend to copies, translations or versions, however.”84
When I first heard this argument I was not persuaded, because I wondered what difference inerrancy makes to Bible readers through the ages if the copying process corrupts the originally pristine document. That’s before I realized that while the copies contain errors, these are not on matters of doctrine. Dr. Geisler shows that the great majority of the errors are in spelling, style, and other grammatical trivialities, and that only about 1 percent of these “variants”—differences in wording—bear on the meaning of the text, with none affecting any major Christian doctrine.85 (Note that this refers to 1 percent of the variants, not 1 percent of the entire text.) Richard Bentley, a classical English biblical critic, confirms that these minor errors do not pervert or set aside “one article of faith or moral precept.”86
Even Bart Ehrman, the most famous manuscript scholar who is skeptical of orthodox Christianity, affirms that “the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by actual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Evangelical scholars Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace observe, “Any uncertainty over the wording of the original New Testament does not have an impact on major teachings of the New Testament. They certainly do not affect the deity of Christ. There is simply no room for uncertainty about what the New Testament originally taught.”87 What matters, says Carl Henry, is whether these variants corrupt the substantive content of the original and whether they “convey the truth of revelation in reliable verbal form, and infallibly lead the penitent reader to salvation.”88
The gap between the earliest New Testament manuscript fragment—the John Rylands Fragment (117–138 AD), which contains five verses from John 18—and the original is less than fifty years. Another New Testament fragment, the Bodmer Papyri, which contains most of John’s books and Luke, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude, is dated circa 200 AD, so there is a gap of between 100 and 140 years between the manuscript and the original. Even more impressive is the Chester Beatty Papyri (circa 250)—a gap of 150-plus years from the completion of the originals—which contains most of the New Testament. The Codex Vaticanus (325–350 AD) contains the great majority of the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD), as noted, is the oldest existing manuscript of the entire New Testament and contains much of the Old Testament. These date some 250 years from the originals. Again, compared to existing manuscripts for ancient secular texts, the gap between the original and the copies is much smaller for the New Testament. The time gap between the original Iliad and the oldest existing manuscript of the work is between 350 and 400 years, but for most other secular works, the gap exceeds a thousand years.89
Dr. Geisler definitively summarizes the evidence: “The New Testament documents are copied accurately—the New Testament has more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and more accurately copied manuscripts than any other book from the ancient world.”90 As British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar Sir Fredric Kenyon puts it, “The interval between the dates of the 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 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.”91
THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS
In assessing the reliability of the New Testament writers, Dr. Geisler notes that there were more writers, earlier writers, and more accurate writers than for any other book from the ancient world.92 Contrary to the naysayers, the New Testament writers were eyewitnesses, their close associates, or were directly related to Jesus. Of the Gospel writers, Matthew and John were apostles, and Mark and Luke were closely associated with the apostles and also interviewed eyewitnesses. It’s generally believed that Peter was Mark’s main source for eyewitness stories about Jesus.93 Paul and Peter were apostles, and the writer of Hebrews was evidently an associate of the apostles if not an apostle himself. Meanwhile James and probably Jude were Jesus’ half-brothers.94 All the New Testament writers highly valued eyewitness testimony, says New Testament professor Mark Strauss (John 19:35; 21:24; Acts 1:21–22; 10:39, 41; 1 Cor. 15:6; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1–3; Romans 6:17; and 1 Cor. 7:10, 12).95 “The earlier preachers of the gospel knew the value of . . . first-hand testimony,” writes F. F. Bruce, “and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion.”96
Repeatedly, the New Testament writers express their fervent commitment to truthful and accurate reporting. Luke begins his Gospel stressing the importance of writing “an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3–4). In the Book of Acts he writes, “For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). Peter declares, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). Paul writes, “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). John states, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life” (1 John 1:1). John reports that Jesus said, “And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:27). The writer of Hebrews proclaims, “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Heb. 2:3–4).
Of the New Testament writers, J. P. Moreland asserts, “There is no adequate motive for their labors other than a sincere desire to proclaim what they believed to be the truth.”97 The Gospel writers, the apostles, and the disciples still had doubts about Jesus before He appeared to them in His bodily resurrection. Those appearances transformed them from cowardly and fair-weather followers to bold declarants of Jesus Christ, His deity, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His unique saving power. These men had everything to lose and nothing to gain by proclaiming Christ and His Gospel. New Testament scholar Gary Habermas notes that the disciples had no incentive to concoct an elaborate hoax to start a new religion.98
If the New Testament writers were trying to construct an airtight case for their claims, would they have penned different Gospel accounts or coordinated every minute detail in unassailable uniformity? Would they have painted themselves in an embarrassing light, as they often did (such as Peter denying Jesus three times), or would they have depicted themselves as heroes? Would they have woven a story in which the promised Messiah was anything but what they expected, Who not only didn’t defeat Israel’s Roman oppressors, but allowed Himself to be crucified without lifting a finger in His own defense? As ardent Jewish believers, would they have preached what Jewish leaders considered blasphemy?99
Yes, adherents of cults and other religions through the years have been willing to die for their beliefs too. But in those cases all they had was their beliefs. The New Testament writers, by contrast, were reporting what they actually witnessed, heard, and experienced, much of which was witnessed by multiple sources. Why would they have subjected themselves to ridicule, hardship, persecution, and death for something they knew was a lie?100
Moreover, in reporting Christ’s miracles and other acts, the New Testament writers were addressing an audience that could easily have contradicted them, but there is no record this ever happened.101
Finally, Jesus not only vouches for the inspiration of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17–18), but also promises the New Testament writers would be inspired with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). “Christ’s authentication of the Old Testament,” argues Robert Gromacki, “forms the basis of His preauthentication of the New Testament.”102 As Christ Himself declares, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). But how, asks Gromacki, would we come to know Jesus’ words unless they were going to be written down? Jesus foretells the content of the writings, saying the Holy Spirit will “teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). Jesus insists the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth, and “he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:12–14). In promising the Holy Spirit will bring all things to their remembrance, notes Gromacki, Christ is hinting at the Gospel accounts. When He says the Spirit will teach them all things and guide them into all truth, He is pointing to the epistles. In saying the spirit will “declare to you the things that are to come,” Jesus could be talking about prophetic sections, including the Book of Revelation.103 In addition, the New Testament writers claim to be writing with the divine authority Jesus gave them (John 20:31; 1 John 1:1; 1 John 4:1, 5–6).104
The accuracy of the New Testament record is further supported by voluminous archaeological studies and discoveries, but it is beyond the scope of this book to review those as I did in Jesus on Trial. Moreover, Jesus’ existence is corroborated by a large number of other non-biblical Christian writers and by many ancient non-Christian authors: Josephus, Julius Africanus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, and Celsus, to name a few.105
Having established the reliability of the New Testament and reviewed the development of the canon, we will next turn to an overview of the New Testament, examining the arrangement and structure of the books and how the New Testament is in perfect harmony with the Old Testament and completes God’s divine plan of salvation.