Sadly, many people today still are not willing to acknowledge that the Bible is a first rate book of history. One reason I believe is that if one acknowledges that the Bible is historically accurate then they may also have to acknowledge that it may just be accurate in its spiritual message – that we are all sinners and need to repent. And we all know that most people are not willing to make that decision. But historians face a dilemma. To not acknowledge that the Bible is historically accurate means, in all good faith, they would have to say the same thing about all other ancient historical documents.
Just how do we know about ancient history? In particular how do we know about the history of our world 2,000 years ago? Historians have to rely on copies of documents since originals from that time frame no longer exist. It goes without saying that the more documents we have and the closer to the actual time when an event happened allows us to be more comfortable that what happened actually did. Köstenberger and Kruger sum up the situation in regards to documents copied during times of antiquity well when they say: “Unfortunately, these two components of every textural critic’s wish list – numerous copies and also some with an early date – are relatively rare in the study of most documents of antiquity.”1
Just why should we feel so comfortable that the New Testament is historically reliable? Well for starters archeology has shown us over and over again that the entire Bible can be verified through what these scientists have unearthed. Second it is well-known that Luke was a first-rate historian of the highest degree. One of the great archaeologists of the 19th century, Sir William Ramsay, spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke’s credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament. After all of his work he finally concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”2 Luke’s accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles clearly shows that Luke was a very detailed historian. And third, the sheer number of manuscripts of the New Testament compared with other ancient documents should give us great confidence that the New Testament is a reliable historical document. I like the way Dan Wallace puts it:
“The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches.”3
We also know that the time of composition of the New Testament compared to other ancient documents is so much closer to the original autographs that the chance for errors to have crept in is much less than these other ancient texts that historians consider accurate. It is common knowledge that the works written around the time of the New Testament from Caesar, Plato, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Aristotle, as well as many others, only have from about 5 to 50 manuscripts left and the earliest of these manuscripts are from 1,000 to 1,400 years after the time when the event or works took place. Yet no historian of today doubts their veracity. And as far as the time frame, we possess fragments and partial New Testament portions within 100 years of the original autographs; and complete New Testaments within 350 years of the original autographs.
So, what can we conclude about the nature of the New Testament? First, this situation is truly unique as far as ancient documents go. Second, because scribes did the copying we should expect the documents to be much closer to the originals than that of historians since this was the sole profession of the scribes. Third, since the New Testament was copied (and we have these copies) much closer to the time of the originals there is much less chance of corruption of the text, Fourth, as Köstenberger and Kruger share: “In addition to all these manuscripts, there are also a countless number of citations of the New Testament preserved in the early church fathers, so many, in fact, that Metzger has famously declared, ‘So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.’”4 And finally, since the New Testament is in reality a supernatural book, we should expect it to have withstood the test of time in every way – and so far it has, just as we read in (Isaiah 40:8): “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”
During my time as an atheist, I used to laugh at the Bible as being full of errors, not only in the spiritual realm but historically. If only I had known these facts back then. I am not saying I would have come to Christ right away, but I certainly would have had to check these things out because they totally contradicted my belief system concerning the Bible. And that’s where apologetics can be so powerful. If someone has an open mind and heart and is exposed to this evidence I believe it will certainly give that individual food for thought to at least check it out. And this coupled with prayer for that person can have a great chance that they may come to the Lord. Apologetics is powerful but apologetics plus prayer is sheer dynamite!
1 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), pp. 206-207.
2 http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Luke.html
3 Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Documents | Apologetics315
4 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), p. 208.