Why You Should Trust the New Testament: Reasons for Reliability

Back to Basics Apologetics Column

 

---

This is an online article from the Christian Research Journal. 

When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,000 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.

Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here.

---

 

There is not a single well-evidenced historical fact about Jesus that undermines the “orthodox” view of Jesus.
Nearly two and a half centuries of assiduous study, research, and discovery by archaeologists, historians…
and other scholars searching for an alternative Jesus have failed to turn up a scrap of
evidence that contravenes what Christians have traditionally said about him.¹

—Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski

The topic of New Testament (NT) reliability is one of the most popular for Christians. A reason for this is because the issue is often at the intersection of discipleship and apologetics. For example, we might ask the following, “Is knowing that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians or Galatians an apologetic question or a discipleship question?” The answer is “Yes!” The person asking the authorship question could be a disciple or a skeptic. This is due to the fact that disciples, both old and new, want to know and understand Scripture better, and doing so typically involves asking questions. Skeptics may hold various stereotypes or misconceptions about the NT and, thus, give Christians an opportunity to offer a reason why they believe the NT is trustworthy (we should note an evangelistic component here as well!).

Given that NT reliability is not only a popular but also an important topic, what can be said about it? Since the topic can be addressed from multiple angles and perspectives, I will present several different arguments that are part of a larger case that I have recently made in Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament.² While I cannot cover all thirteen here, I can briefly introduce several to demonstrate that the NT is, in fact, trustworthy.

Textual Evidence

How do we know the words in our NT are the same words that were written down by the original authors? Answering this question is the task and topic of textual criticism. This topic is often discussed in reliability discussions because we “have more manuscripts for the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world.”³ Since textual criticism applies to all ancient works, not just the NT, it is important to note the sheer quantity of NT texts. There are over 5,000 manuscripts in the Greek language alone, far more than any other ancient writing. It would be difficult for one to call into question the NT textual evidence without simultaneously doing so for all other works of antiquity.

Textual criticism is, of course, more than just having a multitude of copies.⁴ Other aspects are important and include considering the date of the different manuscripts (with scholars typically preferring earlier copies to later).⁵ Another facet of textual criticism seeks to identify the differences between the manuscripts. A majority of differences, as should be expected, are spelling issues or other negligible mistakes that are common when copying a text. Oftentimes, when there is a discussion or debate on a text, it is usually very small and these texts are often noted in Bibles with a footnote. Textual scholar Dan Wallace concludes there are no significant manuscript differences that call into question the fundamentals of Christianity because “the text is certain in all essentials, and even in most particulars we can be relatively sure.”⁶

It is important to note that textual criticism is only able to help us be confident that the words we have were the words actually written by the original authors. It does not make any assessment as to whether those words communicate reliable information. Nevertheless, we must be confident that we have the actual text prior to assessing the claims in the text. In other words, a trustworthy text is a prerequisite for considering the trustworthiness of the claims.

NT Genre

Watching a spaceship launch into space brings many ideas to mind. However, what guides our ideas of the launch is whether we are watching it on the news or if we are watching a fictional sci-fi movie. The genre makes a difference! The same is true with the NT writings. We understand the Gospels quite differently than, say, Revelation. The reason for this is because their genres are not the same.

Richard Burridge’s work has been immensely influential in genre discussions, particularly with respect to the Gospels. Burridge’s dissertation set out to show that whatever genre the Gospels were, they were not ancient biographies. However, upon looking at the evidence, he was convinced of the opposite and that the Gospels — to his surprise(!) — did fit properly within the genre of ancient biography!⁷ His work went on to be an instant classic on the subject and quickly convinced other scholars as well. This is not an insignificant matter since genre guides our interpretation of the Gospels. Our understanding would be different if they were, for example, novels.

The NT is also filled with several in-house letters from believers to other believers. The fact that we have these letters is significant since they are not considered to be pieces of propaganda but were written due to various and diverse circumstances to those who already believed. Just as letters from within a particular group today can be shared to show “what goes on behind the scenes,” so too do these letters give insight into what the earliest followers of Jesus believed. Paul’s writings are especially helpful since he was not only a former persecutor of the church, but also because he knew many of the “pillars” of the church (e.g., Galatians 1:18–2:10).

Creeds within the NT

When many of us hear the word “creeds” we tend to think about something like the Nicene Creed. This is understandable but emphatically not what I am referring to in this instance. Creeds within the NT refer to oral traditions that have, for different reasons, been preserved in the different texts of the NT.⁸ One of the most explicit creedal formulas begins in 1 Corinthians 15:3, where Paul says that he “delivered” to the church in Corinth what he also “received.” These two words are considered to be technical words for formally passing on a tradition. Here Paul is reminding the church in Corinth of the tradition that was “of first importance” (e.g., the “gospel”) and which he passed to them at an earlier date. If Paul “delivered” the material beginning at 1 Corinthians 15:3 to the church at an earlier date, when did Paul “receive” it himself?

It is widely acknowledged by virtually all scholars, believers and unbelievers alike, that Paul received this material in the early AD 30s.⁹ One of the reasons for this is because in Galatians 1:18–19 Paul tells us that just three years after his conversion he went to Jerusalem to “become acquainted” (historēsai) with Peter and also saw James. The context of Galatians 1 is the gospel, and we just noted that Paul gave the Corinthians that which was of “first importance.” Accordingly, as C. H. Dodd famously noted, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”¹⁰ In fact, this is probably the meeting where Paul confirmed most of the traditions that are elsewhere preserved in his writings.¹¹

There are other oral formulas that scholars have often considered preserved within the NT, and these would include Romans 1:3–4, Romans 10:9, and Philippians 2:5–11, among others.¹² Coincidentally, these texts involve the core components of Christianity, such as Christology or resurrection, and thus would be the ones we would expect to be the best preserved because of their centrality to the gospel. As should be clear from the above, two important reasons these creedal formulas are important for NT reliability is because of their incredibly early dating and the fact that they are connected to eyewitnesses, such as Peter, James, and Paul. These are not things that we should take for granted. Rather, these are important data points that connect trustworthiness to many of Christianity’s central claims.

Historical Criteria

Historical criteria are very helpful when it comes to examining specific events. They are particularly beneficial since they are, in many ways, very intuitive. Many of us use them every day when we hear someone make some claim about the past. For example, when we are confronted with a report, one of the first things we will want to know is whether there are witnesses, and preferably multiple witnesses. Of course, when it comes to the ancient past, the witnesses are deceased, so we look for multiple independent reports.

Another criterion we should be paying attention to is the bias of the report itself. Bias does not automatically make something false, but we do want to take it into account.¹³ For example, if we come across a report in which someone acknowledges something that goes against their biases or is embarrassing, this adds weight to the historicity of that event. Depending upon the context, this can be referred to as enemy attestation or embarrassing attestation.

There are other criteria beyond these, but it is important to realize that these criteria typically only add weight to the historicity of an event. One exception to this is contextual credibility. If an event is not contextually credible, it may be deemed to have not occurred. The disciples riding motorcycles would undoubtedly fall into this category!

An example of the criteria being utilized will be helpful, even if it is only introductory in nature. Reports regarding Jesus’ death by crucifixion meet several different historical criteria. It is contextually credible since we know that crucifixion was a way that people were executed. The event is also widely and multiply attested in various Christian and non-Christian sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus).¹⁴ The event is particularly embarrassing, and Paul even comments that it was foolishness to the Gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews in 1 Corinthians 1:23 (cf. Deuteronomy 21:22–23). Jesus’ death is mentioned in the very early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3 we discussed above. This adds further weight since this report is considered early and connected to eyewitnesses. There are more reasons why scholars believe Jesus died by crucifixion, but these five are a sufficient demonstration of how the criteria can be applied to NT claims.¹⁵

Undesigned Coincidences

Undesigned coincidences tend to get overlooked in reliability discussions, though they can be quite helpful.¹⁶ An undesigned coincidence is when two different texts describe the same event in such a way as to illuminate one another unintentionally. An example will help clarify what I mean.

In John 6:1–7 Jesus asks Philip where to buy food before the feeding of the 5,000. Why does Jesus ask Philip where to get food? Philip is not someone who is often discussed when compared to, say, Peter and yet this is precisely who Jesus asks in John 6. We learn in John 1:44 that Philip is from Bethsaida. Great, so how does that help? Well, we find out in an entirely different Gospel that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred in Bethsaida, Philip’s hometown (Luke 9:10–11). This sheds light on why Jesus would specifically ask Philip in the Gospel of John. Luke’s description of the feeding of 5,000 occurring in Bethsaida, then, adds further clarity to John and vice versa. It is highly unlikely that Luke and John corroborated together to have this “coincidence” occur, but rather reflects the fact that they were both reporting different elements of the same account.

While one example alone may not be particularly helpful, there are several other examples like this. Some of them even include non-Christian writers who help clarify comments made in the NT (e.g., Tacitus and Luke). Undesigned coincidences can provide a helpful cumulative case for the reliability of the NT, and that case grows as more examples are presented.

Spiritual and Life Transformation

Spiritual or life transformations will undoubtedly strike many as an odd inclusion for the reliability of the NT. Indeed, I am not arguing that the NT is trustworthy simply because lives have been changed from reading it. Rather, that transformed lives are consistent with NT teachings. To put it another way, if the NT teachings were true and Jesus was who He said He was, made comments about the existence of the church, the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers, and so on, then it would be very strange indeed if lives were not transformed.¹⁷

Believers have often testified as to how the NT has directly impacted them personally. Many of us can think of well-known believers who have had such experiences (e.g., Augustine) as well as people whom we have met in our own lives.¹⁸ In The Book That Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi points out that the Bible is not only something that we read and interpret, but it is also something that “interprets and evaluates us.”¹⁹ The conviction one may experience while reading the Sermon on the Mount or reflecting on its truths.²⁰

Nonbelievers have also recognized the transformation of others even if they are not necessarily transformed themselves. One may note that there has been an increase in language referring to “cultural Christians” (language used by even Richard Dawkins lately²¹). Others similarly appreciate the values and foundations of Christianity even if they do not or have not (yet) decided to follow Jesus.²² Here we may simply note William Lecky’s famous comment:

It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue but the strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists.²³

 

Reasoned Reliability for Disciples and Doubters

In 1994, Princeton Professor James Charlesworth observed a consensus regarding the Gospels in particular. He pointed out that there were “far too many international authorities to mention” who have recognized “that in its broad outline the Gospels’ account of Jesus is substantially reliable and true.”²⁴ Since then scholarship has appeared to continue along this line of thought. Indeed, it can certainly extend beyond the Gospels and into the writings of, for example, Paul. Although I have only very briefly introduced a few considerations for NT reliability, they highlight some of the reasons that convinced not only scholars but everyday believers as well.

We can now return to where we began, the popularity and great importance of NT reliability. Believers can be greatly encouraged and enrich their understanding of the NT as they learn more about the different reasons why the NT is trustworthy. As our understanding grows, so too does our confidence and commitment to Christ. We do not need to shy away from conversations that seek to point others to the good news of Jesus as Lord who died and rose again. In fact, we can be in a far better position to remove false beliefs or misconceptions that others may have about the reliability of the NT. As these misunderstandings are removed, they may be able to more clearly see the cross of Christ (Acts 17:30–31). Or, if they are a believer who is wrestling with doubts or questions, they may be encouraged to read Scripture (John 8:31–32) or reminded to faithfully and fruitfully live for Jesus (2 Timothy 3:16–17; Ephesians 2:10).

Benjamin C. F. Shaw is President of Core Apologetics as well as adjunct professor of theology at Liberty University and an affiliate faculty member of Colorado Christian University. He is the author of Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament (IVP, 2024).

NOTES

1. Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 23–24, emphasis in original.
2. Benjamin C. F. Shaw, Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024).
3. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 23.
4. For a helpful book on textual criticism, see Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019).
5. We have manuscripts of the NT that are close in time to the writing of the originals, especially when compared to other ancient writings. We have a fragment of John which is around 35–75 years after John wrote. While the NT was completed in the first century, we have copies from as early as the second, third, and fourth centuries. Compare this to Plato, for example, whose earliest manuscripts have a gap of well over 1,000 years from when the originals were written.
6. Daniel B. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text Been Hopelessly Corrupted?,” in In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2013), 163. Even skeptical scholars come to a similar conclusion; see, e.g., Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (NY: HarperCollins, 2005), 252.
7. Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), see, e.g., 253.
8. A number of different words are used for these oral traditions. For a helpful introduction to oral traditions, see Richard N. Longenecker, “Christological Materials in the Early Christian Communities,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 47–76. See also the short but classic works of C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (NY: Harper and Row, 1964); Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, ed. Gary Habermas and Benjamin Charles Shaw, trans. J. K. S. Reid, Reprint (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018).
9. James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (October 2014): 475–98.
10. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16.
11. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131. Paul also makes a second trip to Jerusalem according to Galatians 2:1–10.
12. The sermon summaries in Acts are often considered to contain very early materials as well.
13. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 89.
14. Bart Ehrman notes about a dozen different sources in Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 291.
15. Other factors may include, for example, medical considerations. For an analysis regarding medical specialists, see Gary Habermas, Jonathan Kopel, and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “Medical Views on the Death by Crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings 34, no. 6 (July 30, 2021): 748–52.
16. A recent exception is Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing, 2017).
17. I might also add that there are books that have transformed people’s lives though they are not generally reliable. So my argument here is really highlighting a consistency component for the NT as well as identifying that something being trustworthy involves more than just rationality but also includes other elements (e.g., the will).
18. Thom S. Rainer, The Unexpected Journey: Conversations with People Who Turned from Other Beliefs to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
19. Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 54.
20. Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010).
21. “Richard Dawkins: I’m a Cultural Christian,” LBC, April 1, 2024, YouTube video, 8:10, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg.
22. See Justin Brierley, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Elevate, 2023). Cf. Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019).
23. William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne, 3rd ed., vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897), 8–9.
24. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 7.