Verifying New Testament details with non-biblical sources

The history of the New Testament and the apostles’ claims are all consistent with external non-biblical sources. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, mentions Jesus in a passage in Antiquities (published today in The Works of Josephus, Hendrickson, 1987) and, in a passage that’s disputed for its authenticity in the same book, discusses the details of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection claims. Other references to Jesus Christ are in the writings of two Roman historians (Cornelius Tacitus and Suetonius), a Greek writer (Lucian), a Samarian-born historian (Thallus), and the Jewish Talmud. Each of these secular sources help confirm the basic historical details of the New Testament authors. 

Assessing New Testament authors’ credibility

A second issue concerning the New Testament’s reliability is the trustworthiness of the accounts of the original writers. After all, the precise words of the original manuscripts look certain to have survived intact (see the section, “Considering how many New Testament copies exist,” earlier in this chapter), but that doesn’t account for the idea that the original writers could’ve been mistaken or misleading with what they wrote. 

Several factors strongly indicate the trustworthiness of the New Testament authors, including 

Authors personally knew Jesus or were in direct contact with the apostles.

Authors wrote within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.

All known non-biblical historical sources are consistent with the claims and accounts of the New Testament.

The nature of the authentic New Testament books is far different from fake gospels that occasionally surfaced in later centuries.

Minor inconsistencies in the accounts actually help confirm the trustworthiness of the writings. 

I discuss each of these in the sections that follow. 

Authors were qualified to write

Christians believe that the New Testament authors were qualified to write the books based on two factors: 

Proximity to Jesus: Each of the writers of the New Testament books either had direct contact with Jesus or else was in close contact with those who did. 

Attention to detail: All the authors (except Luke) were Hebrew. Hebrew writers were renowned for their meticulous nature when writing. For example, if a fact was questionable, they didn’t include it. And although Luke, a physician by education, wasn’t Hebrew, he was the most precise of all the New Testament authors in the details he provided in his Gospel and the Book of Acts, which makes it easy to cross-check his facts with non-biblical sources. 

Authors wrote shortly after New Testament events occurred

Authors wrote nearly all the New Testament writings within 40 years of Jesus’ crucifixion, and all within 65 years. Although it was essential that contemporaries of Jesus wrote all the books, 40 years still seems like an awful long time to remember details. After all, I can’t remember many details about my second grade math class, and I’m not even 40 yet! Yet, several important differences exist between how the New Testament writers documented events and how I faintly recollect Mrs. Geedy’s arithmetic class. 

First, the Gospels serve as the written version of the oral history that the disciples and eyewitnesses relayed during the first years of the early Church. As I discuss in the “Before the Internet existed: Communication in the ancient days” sidebar, oral history was much more precise and reliable in those days that it is in today’s modern era, where memories need only be exercised for a moment until you can jot the idea down on a yellow sticky note or in your handheld computerized planner. 

Second, at the time authors recorded the Gospels, many people were alive who could cross-check accounts to confirm or disprove their authenticity. At the beginning of his Gospel , for example, Luke indicates that he investigated many accounts from eyewitnesses and wrote an orderly account that synthesized these various reports (Luke 1:1-4). 

Third, Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit would remind his disciples of all that he said to them (John 14:26). Therefore, if Jesus really was who he said he was (see Chapter 5), then it’s not that big of a deal for the God of the universe to help the Gospel writers fill in the details. 

Authors didn’t sensationalize people or events

Some sceptics argue that the authors wrote the Gospel accounts based not on whether the incidents occurred, but on how these stories fit into Christian teaching. Basically, they’re saying that the miracle stories were added to boost the claims of Jesus. But this criticism doesn’t square away with what’s written in the New Testament. The Gospels are notable for their brutal honesty (such as the often less-than-stellar descriptions of the disciples) and their matter-of-fact details. They discuss – but don’t overly sensationalize – miracles and often tend to mention them without any fanfare. 

If you compare the New Testament Gospels with a few Gospel-wannabes that were written in the second and third centuries, you notice a huge difference between the two sets of books. Although the fake gospels contain amazing childhood miracles and idealized accounts of the apostles, the genuine ones have a down-to-earth quality to them. 

Authors were consistent theologically in spite of inconsistencies and discrepancies

One of the most common arguments against the reliability of the Gospels is the fact that some inconsistencies spring up in the accounts of the writers. For example, Matthew says that the two criminals crucified with Jesus curse him, while Luke makes a special point of talking about the repentant heart of one of them. Also, Matthew reports of only one angel at Jesus’ tomb, while Luke mentions two. Although these inconsistencies do raise questions in determining the exact specifics of what happened, Christians believe that they shouldn’t call into question the reliability of the writings. First, the inconsistencies that appear are relatively minor details in the grand scheme of things and never create theological differences between accounts. Second, ironically, these discrepancies actually show the authors’ integrity, as they wrote what they believed to be true instead of trying to put on a united front on all matters. If Christianity was a conspiracy among the apostles, then they could easily have gotten their story straight on such matters.