The foundation of the Christian message is the Bible.  Before someone is willing to consider the Bible as a source of authority in their lives, the first question asked might be, “Can I know the Bible’s story is true?”  This is a good question.  The Bible claims to be a history of God’s working in the lives of those who choose to surrender their lives to his leadership.  Therefore, the basic question of the story’s reliability needs to be asked.

To answer this question, some of the basic aspects of the composition of the Bible need to be addressed.  To begin with, the Bible is divided into the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament.”  Both the Old and New Testaments were written as a series of separate documents (called books, gospels or letters).  The first seventeen books of the Old Testament are a written history of God’s work among the people of Israel.  The next five books of the Old Testament are called Wisdom writings.  They include advice for daily living (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) and songs of worship (Psalms).  These books also include books that tackle the subject of romance (Song of Songs) and the question of suffering (Job).  The last seventeen books of the Old Testament are the collected works of prominent prophets (preachers) throughout the history of Israel.  

The first four books of the New Testament are called gospels.  A gospel is a biography of Jesus’ life, which focuses on his ministry, death and resurrection.  The next book, Acts, is a history of the early Christian movement.  The next books of the New Testament are epistles.  Written by prominent leaders in the early church, the epistles were written to help the reader learn how to understand and live out her life in the modern world.  The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, is a letter from the Apostle John sharing a vision he experienced.  In this vision, Jesus spoke about how the world would end.

The Books of the Bible

We will take three approaches to establishing the reliability of the historical accounts related in the Old and the New Testaments.  First, we will consider whether we have accurate records of what the Biblical writers originally wrote.  Second, we will consider whether the historical accounts given in the Bible are confirmed by extra Biblical historical studies.  Third, we will explore the style of writing of the Biblical documents and ask if the writing style adds or detracts from their credibility. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT

Textual Accuracy – Do we have an Accurate Record of What the Old Testament Writers Originally Wrote?

The Bible claims to be written by many different authors – among who were national leaders, poets, prophets, tax collectors, fishermen and in one case a former terrorist.  A basic question often asked is “do we have an accurate record of what these persons originally wrote?"  This is a legitimate and important question.

An investigation of the Old Testament documents shows the answer to be a ringing “Yes!”  We can know with certainty we have in our Bibles an accurate copy of what the authors of the Old Testament documents wrote.

Each of the Biblical documents began with an initial document – called the “autograph” – penned by the author.  This autograph document would serve to be the basis of all following documents.  From this point, the document would be hand copied by succeeding generations of copyists.  This process continued unabated until the advent of the printing press in the 15^th Century (A.D.).

Today there are over ten thousand of these copies of the Old Testament books written in the Hebrew language.[2]  These copies were written between the third century B.C. and the fourteenth century A.D.

When these texts are compared with each other, they are in word for word agreement 95 percent of the time.[3]  This is astonishing!  Imagine how many opportunities for mistakes there were in the process of hand copying over a period of hundreds, even thousands, of years.  Yet for all this, there is only a 5 percent degree of error.  The story gets even more interesting when you consider the majority of these errors are comprised of slips of the pen, grammatical and spelling errors that are easily detected.  Of the errors left, none significantly influences the meaning of the text or Christian beliefs.[4]  This high degree of agreement of the texts guarantees we have accurate copies of the writings of the Old Testament authors.

How could these copyists have duplicated the Old Testament texts over thousands of years, with such a degree of accuracy?  Today we know of some of the practices of the copyists – and the degree of effort they put into their work is, to say the least, astonishing.

For instance, Samuel Davidson reports on the copying practices of the Jewish scholars called the Talmudists (A.D. 100-500).  Davidson reports the rolls[5] used for copying were to be of the hides of certain animals, prepared specifically for the use of copying the scriptures.  Every hide was to contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire roll.  Further, every column was to be between forty eight to sixty lines.  When finished, the copies were checked for letter for letter accuracy and the spaces between letters and paragraphs were to be according to a uniform code.  Additionally, Davidson reports the color of the ink (black) was regulated.[6]

Bible scholar, F.F. Bruce reports on the copying practices of the Jewish scholars called the Masoretes (A.D. 500-950).  Bruce states the Masoretes were disciplined to a great degree and protected the text with the “greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips.  They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these.  (Bruce then quotes Wheeler Robinson): “everything countable seems to be counted…”[7]

The Jewish people regarded the Old Testament text as sacred – as being literally the words of the living God.  Their high regard for the sacred nature of the Old Testament drove them to seek word for word accuracy in copying the texts – believing to alter the text in any way was a sin against God.  Proverbs 30:6 (from the Old Testament) says, “Do not add to his [God’s] words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”  The respect of the Jewish people for the Old Testament accounts for why we have accurate copies of what the Old Testament writers originally wrote.

Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?

The next question we consider is whether the historical reporting given in the Old Testament is confirmed by historical evidence.  Why is this important?  If we can give evidence for the historical reliability of the Old Testament then we are closer to being able to trust its claim to represent the very words of God.

The Account of Jericho (Joshua 2:1-6:27)

One of the examples of the Old Testament’s historical accuracy is seen in the remarkable similarity between the findings of modern archaeologists and the Biblical accounts of Jericho’s demise.  The story of Jericho’s demise is told in Joshua 2:1-6:27.  According to the Biblical account:

These details are confirmed in amazing specificity by the archaeological record.[8]

The Location and Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13:10-12, 19:23-26, 28)

The Bible states Sodom and Gomorrah were in a group of five cities found in the area of what is now the Dead Sea.  The Bible tells us the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a fiery conflagration because of their disobedience to God. 

Until the advent of recent discoveries, skeptical researchers had questioned the Bible’s story of Sodom and Gomorrah’s location and destruction.  Archaeological evidence now reveals all five of the cities mentioned in the Bible were in fact centers of commerce in the area.  Further, evidence of intense heat, burning, earthquake and other geological disturbance reveals the area was subject to the violent upheaval described in the Biblical text.[9]

The Price Paid for Joseph

The Bible says Joseph, one of the patriarchs of the people of Israel, was sold into slavery for twenty shekels of silver (Genesis 37:28).  Archaeological studies have now confirmed this is indeed the correct price for the period represented by the book of Genesis.  K.A. Kitchen says, “Earlier than this, slaves were cheaper (10-15 shekels), later than this, more expensive.”[10]

Joseph’s Burial Arrangements

Joseph eventually rose from slavery, to become the second in command to the King of Egypt.  Toward the end of his life, the Bible states Joseph requested the people of Israel take his body with them when they would leave Egypt (Genesis 50:24-26).  The Bible records how Moses honored this wish, and took Joseph’s body with the Israelites when they left Egypt (Exodus 13:19).  The Bible also records how Joshua, Moses’ successor, did finally bury Joseph’s body within Israel’s borders in the town of Shechem (Joshua 24:32). 

For centuries, there was a tomb at Shechem venerated as the tomb of Joseph.  When the tomb was opened, a body was discovered which had been mummified according to Egyptian burial customs and in the tomb was a sword of the type worn by Egyptian officials of Joseph’s time.[11]

Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17-19:37, Isaiah 36:1-37:38)

The Bible tells of the King of Assyria’s (Sennacherib) siege of Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah.  The Bible records how Sennacherib was able to capture all of the cities of Hezekiah except the city of Jerusalem.  Archaeological excavations of the Assyrian palace of Ashurbanipal have now found Sennacherib’s own version of the events – complete with his own “spin” of his failure to capture Jerusalem.

 “As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke.  I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts, and to the countless small villages in their vicinity…I drove out of them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting and considered (them) booty.  Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage.”[12]

The Bible also tells of the assassination of Sennacherib by two of his sons (2 Kings 19:37, Isaiah 37:38).  Assyrian records confirm the accuracy of this account as well.[13] 

Old Testament Cities, Towns and Nations

Throughout the Old Testament, towns and nations in the region of Israel are frequently mentioned.  Today many of these ancient towns and nations have been identified – just as the Old Testament names them.  No contradiction has been found in the Bible’s naming and locating of various cities, towns and nations and the findings of modern historical research.[14]

Foreign Kings

Twenty six foreign kings (non Israelite) are named in the Old Testament.  When compared with archaeological records we find each of these king’s names is reproduced with complete phonetic accuracy in the Old Testament text.  In addition, all kings are listed properly in regard to their chronological place in history.[15]

Old Testament Words – Anachronisms or Not?

In the early part of the twentieth century, some scholars charged that the Old Testament text was full of anachronisms – that it used words that could not have come from the time frame represented by the text.  For example, if a letter was found that appeared to be written by Abraham Lincoln, historians would check for the presence of anachronisms.  If it were found to include the phrase, “I [Lincoln] forgot to shut off my personal computer,” it would be recognized as a forgery because personal computers came into existence long after Lincoln. 

Biblical scholars now conclude the words and phrases employed throughout the Old Testament text are accurate to the timeframes represented by the individual writers.[16]

The Straightforward Reporting of Facts

One method for determining whether a document is historically reliable is to look at its treatment of its subject.  Does the writer’s style communicate he is serious about writing a historical account?  Does the writer shade the truth or does the writer “lay it out” without playing favorites?  When confronted with this type of analysis, the Old Testament once again demonstrates we can trust its historical accuracy. 

On the issue of style, the writers of the Old Testament repeatedly make clear that accuracy is one of their central goals.  The Old Testament is primarily a history of the people of Israel designed to recount the special working of God in their midst.  For this reason, accuracy in the accounts was treasured by its writers.

Consider the efforts of the writer of Genesis to make clear that one famine he is referring to is not confused with another.  Genesis 26:1 says, “Now there was a famine in the land—besides the earlier famine of Abraham’s time—and Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines in Gerar.” 

There is also the account of the Exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt.  In the following section, notice the precise attention given to details about avoiding the region of the Philistines and even the roads taken.  Why include such detail if you are not interested in accurate history?  Exodus 13:17-18, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though was shorter.  For God said, “If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.”  So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea” 

There are also the frequent notes referring to other historical works “for further research.”  Such as the note in 1 Kings 11:41, “As for the other events of Solomon’s reign—all he did and the wisdom he displayed—are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?”  Notice also Isaiah’s concern to note the times in which he prophesied.  Isaiah 1:1 says, “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”

This book could be filled alone with references such as these.  The evidence shows the Old Testament writers clearly had a concern to report history accurately.

Did the writers “shade the truth” in favor of the heroes of the Bible?  This would not be an uncommon practice for this day and time – as official historians routinely distorted their reports to make their nation and leaders look good.  Yet this is not what we see in the Old Testament.  The writers of Old Testament history spell out the character faults of Biblical heroes just as clearly as their strengths.

Abraham
Abraham was considered the Father of the entire nation of Israel.  Yet while the Bible clearly records his great faith, his generosity and his bravery, the Bible also records his unfortunate habit of lying and of compromise when the situation suited him.

Moses
Consider the uncomplimentary record of Moses’ life.  Although the high points of his accomplishments are recorded – so are his low points.  The Biblical text clearly records Moses’ committing of murder and his difficulty in controlling his temper throughout his life.

David
David’s reign was considered the pinnacle of success for the nation of Israel.  Yet along with David’s moments of triumph, the Bible tells about his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and of David’s murder of Bathsheba’s husband.

The People of Israel

Most official histories tend to put the national record in a good light.  Yet the Bible unhesitatingly records the many failures and sins of the people of Israel as well as their successes.  The Bible records the exact reason for the downfall of the nation – their refusal to obey God and his ultimate judgment on the nation.

When the writing style of the Old Testament is analyzed, we have more than enough reasons to trust the writers were indeed making a serious effort to record accurate history. 

When Were the Old Testament Books Written and Who Wrote Them?

People often wonder when the books of the Bible were written and who their true authors were.  Until recently, it was commonly believed the books of the Bible were written in the time frame claimed by the book in question.  The question of who wrote each book was determined by comments of the writers of the Biblical text.  Where this means of identification is not available, the authorship of the text has been left open to question.

For instance, the opening words of the Book of Jeremiah are “The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin.”[17]  Clearly, this text is representing itself as a record of the words of Jeremiah, the ancient Old Testament prophet (preacher).

This perspective on the authorship and date of writing of the Old Testament books has been called into question in the popular media by a number of scholars.  The traditional understanding of the authorship and dating of the Old Testament books has been challenged – ultimately undermining popular acceptance of the historical reliability of the Old Testament books.

Do the Old Testament books authentically represent the writings of individuals who were inspired by God, or are they elaborate forgeries?  This question can be answered when we consider the overall historical accuracy of the Old Testament books.  We know from our study of the Old Testament that every indicator points its historical soundness.  Based on this knowledge, we can ask, why question the Old Testament’s claims of authorship?”  No sufficient reason can be found to doubt the Old Testament’s various claims to authorship.  Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude the books of the Old Testament were written by the writers claimed within the Old Testament texts.[18]

Conclusion – Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?

In conclusion, we know we have accurate copies of what the Old Testament writers originally wrote.  We also know the Old Testament writers reported history accurately.  Finally, we know the Old Testament writers wrote in a straightforward manner designed to communicate history accurately.  Based on this we conclude the Old Testament is in fact historically accurate.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Textual Accuracy – Do We Have an Accurate Record of What the New Testament Writers Originally Wrote?

If the case for the preservation of the original words of the Old Testament authors is strong, the case for the New Testament is overwhelming.  Today we can say with absolute certainty we have an accurate record of what the New Testament authors wrote.

The process of writing, recording, and preserving the New Testament is very similar to the processes used for the Old Testament.  Each book of the New Testament began as an original “autograph.”  In turn, this autograph was duplicated repeatedly over the course of many years.  Today we have 5,686 Partial and complete copies of the New Testament in Greek (the language in which the New Testament was written) written between 127 A.D. – 1400 A.D.[19]

In addition to these copies, we have 24,000 plus copies of the New Testament in other languages (Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian and other languages).[20]  Additionally we have the resource of 36,289 quotes of the New Testament from various sources in the second to fourth centuries.  (We could reconstruct the entire New Testament alone from these sources, minus 11 verses!)[21]

From these 65,000 plus texts, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament text with 99.5% accuracy.[22]  The majority of the remaining .5% is mainly misspellings, grammatical mix-ups, or slips of the pen.[23]  In all cases, no doctrine of Christianity is put in question by any text in question.  New Testament Scholar David Dockery states, “Although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.”[24]

Authors and Approximate Dating of The Old Testament Books[25]

To reassure us further we can look at the dates of the copies of the New Testament manuscripts we possess.  In many cases, these copies are dated within hundreds of years and in some cases within decades of the original writing of the New Testament documents.[26]

Importance of the Agreement of the Biblical texts with Each Other

Why is the agreement between copies of the Old or New Testament a guarantee we have an accurate copy of what the Biblical authors wrote?  Allow me to explain by creating a hypothetical example.  Let’s take, for instance, the gospel of Luke.  The gospel of Luke was written approximately 60 A.D. (approximately 30 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection).  The writer of Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts and then sent them on to the intended recipient - Theophilus (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1).  As with all ancient books there would have been only one original document, as people in those days could not generate multiple manuscripts when writing an article or book as we can today.

Luke would send his original work to Theophilus.  Theophilus, in turn, would have shared the document with his church.  If the document helped them in understanding the Christian message, they would make copies of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts to share with other churches.  Those churches would then receive them and, if they liked what they had read, make more copies and pass them on to other churches.  It’s not too difficult to see how a mistake could work its way into this growing group of copies (and copies of copies).  If a copyist were to leave out any part of the manuscript, all copies based on this copy would be inaccurate.  Very soon, we would have an easily detectable pattern of inconsistencies within the pool of New Testament texts.

The amazing thing is while it would not be too difficult to imagine how a mistake could work its way into this process, it never actually did!  As with their Jewish predecessors, those who copied the New Testament and passed them on to others considered those texts sacred.  Therefore, they sought to copy with the greatest possible accuracy.  Even keeping in mind human diligence, one must seriously consider the idea God miraculously watched over the copying of the New Testament and safeguarded the accuracy of the texts.

Comparing the New Testament to Other Popular Ancient Works

When you compare the manuscript accuracy of the New Testament with other popular ancient manuscripts, we see other ancient books are not as well authenticated by their resources.  Bruce Metzger estimates the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with 90% accuracy, Homer’s Iliad with 95% accuracy.[27] 

Josh McDowell also points out the number of manuscripts by which to verify other ancient texts are much less than the New Testament resources.  For instance, the Iliad, written by Homer, was written in 800 B.C. and has 643 manuscripts to verify its accuracy.  The earliest copy is dated at 400 B.C. (a time gap of 400 years between the writing of the book and the earliest surviving copy).

The Histories, by Herodotus, written 480-425 B.C., has 8 manuscripts by which to verify its accuracy.  The earliest copy is dated at 900 A.D. (a time gap of 1,350 years between the writing of the Histories and the earliest surviving copy).

Plato’s writings, written in 400 B.C., have 7 manuscripts to verify its accuracy with the earliest copy dated at 900 A.D. (a time gap of 1,300 years between the writings of Plato and the earliest copies we have).

Caesar’s Gallic Wars, written between 100-44 B.C. has 10 manuscripts by which to verify its accuracy with the earliest dated copy at 900 A.D. (approximately a 1000 year gap between the writing of Gallic Wars and the earliest surviving copy).

The accuracy of these well known texts is rarely questioned.  Yet the New Testament’s accuracy is often questioned – despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that we have accurate copies of what the original authors wrote (dated within two hundred years and even decades of the original writings).[28]

Historical Accuracy – Is the New Testament Historically Accurate?

As with the Old Testament, the archaeological record confirms the historical accuracy of the New Testament to a very great degree.  In fact, it can be said such ample evidence exists today that we know with certainty the New Testament text is historically accurate and reliable.

John’s Five Covered Colonnades (John 5:2)
In John 5:2, the gospel writer specifically says in Jerusalem there was a pool near the Sheep Gate.  The writer of John specifically states this pool had five covered colonnades.  (A colonnade is a series of columns supporting the base of a roof structure).  It is interesting the writer makes this as an offhand remark.  He is claiming to have been well acquainted with the city of Jerusalem.  Excavations of this area of Jerusalem have now been done and they have discovered the site John spoke of – with five colonnades![29]

In Which Province Does the City of Iconia Belong?  (Acts 14:1-6)
In Acts 14:1-6, the writer speaks of the Apostle Paul traveling to three cities within the jurisdiction of Rome – Lystra, Derbe and Iconia.  In this passage, the writer states cities of Lystra and Derbe are located within the province of Lycaonia.  The writer then implies the city of Iconia is outside this province.

In the nineteenth century, it was thought this account was in error.  This was because of writings of other contemporaries of the author of Acts, which stated Iconia was part of the province of Lycaonia.  In the end, however, the writer of Acts was discovered to be correct.  The cities in question (Lystra, Derbe and Iconia) were part of the region of Galatia, which was subdivided into four provinces: Isauria, Pisidia, Phrygia and Lycaonia.  Although Iconia was generally considered part of the province of Lycaonia, during the years 37 A.D. – 72 A.D., (the period claimed to be represented in this section of Acts), Iconia was removed from Lycaonia’s sphere, and put under the authority of the province of Phrygia due to various political considerations.[30]

It is significant to note the detail of accuracy seen in this passage.  Again, this is an almost offhand remark – but it demonstrates the seriousness with which the writer of Acts approached the question of historical accuracy.

Countries, Cities and Islands Reported in the Book of Acts
The writer of Acts claims to be a person who lived in the times he writes about, and to have experienced many of the events as well.  We would expect such a person to be able to give accurate reporting about the areas through which he claims to have traveled.  This is indeed the case.  Dr. Norman Geisler reports the writer of Acts names thirty two countries, fifty four cities, and nine islands all with 100% accuracy.[31] 

Erastus, Director of Public Works (Romans 16:23)
In Romans 16:23 the Apostle Paul writes from the city of Corinth, “Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings.”  The existence of Erastus was confirmed during the excavations of Corinth in 1929 when this inscription was found on a section of pavement.  “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.”[32] 

F.F. Bruce states, “The evidence indicates this pavement existed in the first century A.D., and it is most probable the donor is identical with the Erastus who is mentioned by Paul.”[33]

The Seven Churches of Revelation (Revelation 2:1-3:21)
The book of Revelation has often been the focus of much speculation about the future.  Its record of historical accuracy, however, should not be overlooked!  In the early chapters of Revelation, detailed mention is given of seven cities and their churches.  Each of the references to these cities provides valuable historical detail about these cities.  For example, the members of the church of Laodicea are encouraged to “salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.”[34]  Historians have discovered the city of Laodicea was famous for producing an eye ointment with great healing properties.  There are many such instances like this throughout the book of Revelation.[35]

These are just a few of the historical facts supporting the New Testament story.  The historical accuracy of the New Testament is the rule, not the exception. 

The Straightforward Reporting of Facts

As with the Old Testament, the New Testament must be probed to discover whether its writers intended to report history soberly and accurately.  The intent of the writer is of utmost concern.  For instance, if the writer of a particular work intended to write a fiction than we would know we should not bother to rely on their work as a history.[36]  By contrast, if the intent of a writer was to report history accurately, than we would know we could consider their work as being a possible source of accurate history. 

The New Testament is well supplied with references to the intent of the writers to relay accurate historical information.  The following examples are a sampling of such statements in the New Testament.

The Writer of Luke and Acts

The person who wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts clearly states he was trying to communicate history accurately and fairly.  Luke 1:3-4 states, “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so  you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Peter’s Account

In the time of the New Testament writers, it was common for people to produce fictitious histories and try to pass them off as historical accounts.  Peter, trying to make it clear what he was talking about was not made up, states, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”  (2 Peter 1:16) 

The Apostle John

Throughout the Apostle John’s gospel and letters, the historical nature of the reporting is constantly reaffirmed.  Consider John 21:24, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.  We know that his testimony is true.”  John himself testifies in 1 John 1:1-3, “The one who existed from the beginning is the one we have heard and seen.  We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands.  He is Jesus Christ, the Word of life.  This one who is life from God was shown to us, and we have seen him.  And now we testify and announce to you that he is the one who is eternal life.  He was with the Father, and then he was shown to us.  We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard....” (NLV)

That the New Testament writers were attempting to report accurate history cannot be denied.  This forces us to treat the accounts of the New Testament writers as being – at the very least – serious attempts to report historical facts.

In our study of the Old Testament, we discovered a bias or lack of bias shown toward the subject can help us to determine the reliability of a historical report.  In addition, we should consider if the writer tries to hide faults within the people and events portrayed.  Again, we will see the New Testament reports the straight facts and avoids glossing over embarrassing or difficult truths.

Unflattering Portrayal of the Disciples

One of the constant themes throughout the gospels is the repeated failure of the Disciples – the twelve closest friends of Jesus – to understand him or follow his teaching.  Repeatedly the disciples show an inability to understand Jesus’ message of peace and love towards their fellow neighbor, and seem constantly on a quest for personal power.  Only after Jesus’ resurrection do the disciples “get it.”  Yet why would the writers of the gospel portray the future leaders of the new church as so incompetent at understanding their master’s message?

The Prominence of Women

An additional perspective on the straightforward nature of the New Testament’s reporting is seen in how it highlights the role and value of women in the life of Jesus and the early church.  The New Testament repeatedly highlights women in prominent roles and even states they were the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection.  This is curious when one considers the lack of respect in which women were held in that time.  Women were seen to have little credibility as either leaders or witnesses in a legal setting.  From the perspective of the New Testament writers, the decision to introduce women so prominently in their reporting would have greatly reduced the chances of their writings being accepted.  Why report this unless it was true?  

Accepting the Unaccepted

Another curious aspect of the reporting of the New Testament is the tendency to highlight those whom society rejected.  Repeatedly throughout the New Testament the poor, the sick, the weak, and the old are portrayed as being central players in the work of Jesus.  Today we accept this perspective.  In the society in which the New Testament was written, however, such persons were seen as worthless.  Why report this unless it was true?

When Were the New Testament Books Written and Who Wrote Them?

When the New Testament writings were written and who wrote these documents has recently been brought into question by scholars in the popular media.  Until recently, the accepted belief was the New Testament was written by the persons represented by the text.  It was also believed the New Testament writings were written in the timeframes represented by the writings themselves.

How are the identities of the New Testament writers determined?  Usually the name of the writer is determined from cues within the text.  For example, the epistle (letter) to the Romans clearly states it was written by Paul the apostle.  “Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God in Corinth.”[37]  In instances where the name of the New Testament writer is not clearly stated, historical sources outside the Biblical record may be used to supply the names of the person who authored the text.  This is the case in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the book of Hebrews.  The timeframes in which the New Testament writings were written are also determined from cues within the text.

As with the Old Testament, some scholars challenge the authorship and date presumed by the Biblical record.  Are these challenges valid?  At first, these challenges often seem to present a challenge to the Biblical record.  Detailed study, however, vindicates the accepted names of the authors and the dates of writing.

We can use the data we have studied to draw our own conclusions.  In our study, we have seen the historical accuracy of the text demonstrated repeatedly.  In addition, we know from the straightforward style of writing of the New Testament there is no hint of favoritism in its reporting.  The historical accuracy of the New Testament and the straightforward style of writing are important because they help us to discern forged historical accounts from genuine historical accounts.

An example of a forged historical account can be seen in the Gospel of Peter – discovered in 1889, in Upper Egypt.[38]  This document, claiming to be written by Simon Peter, gives a very interesting account of the resurrection event – to say the least!  In this account, Jesus’ resurrection is witnessed by the guards at the tomb and the religious leadership who executed Jesus.  In the course of events, two angels as tall as the sky exit the tomb holding the hand of another – presumably Jesus – whose head reaches taller than the sky.  If this isn’t enough, the angels and Jesus are followed by a talking cross.[39]  Obviously, the writer of the Gospel of Peter was not interested in reporting history accurately, and he clearly was not above adding his own poetic embellishments.

Authors and Approximate Dating of The New Testament Books[40]

By contrast, note the sparseness of the record and the lack of embellishment when the gospels report about the miracles or the resurrection of Jesus.  Notice how they simply report the event, and leave the audience to draw their own conclusions.

Can we trust the New Testament claims about the authorship and times of writing of its various books?  Yes, we can!

Conclusion

When we compare the textual accuracy, the historical accuracy and the style of writing of the New Testament, we conclude the New Testament is historically accurate.  Once this is decided, we are forced to consider the issues addressed by the New Testament.  These issues include the claims of Jesus, his miracles and his resurrection – which we will investigate in the following chapters.