The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. So much has been debated about the New Testament’s reliability that I think maybe this point has been missed. Namely, the New Testament does exist as a collection of ancient works, and can be looked at as such for historical facts. As I look at other works of ancient history, I am going to apply the same criteria to all of them, including the New Testament. I will look for facts from the work that are 1) strongly evidenced and 2) accepted by virtually all the scholars who studied the material.

As Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have reminded us in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus“, Historians recognize that most writings of antiquity contain factual errors and propaganda. They still can identify kernels of historical truth in those sources. If they eliminated a source completely because of bias or error, they would know next to nothing about the past.”1 Why, then, cannot a skeptic of the New Testament look into the evidence surrounding the strongly attested passages and glean truths (facts) from the material? They can and they do.

Gary Habermas has been researching the scholarly work on the New Testament from 1975 to the present. He has combined the research of over 2000 scholars who are atheists, skeptics, liberals, middles, and conservatives. In doing this research, Habermas has noted some trends in what these scholars grant as historically reliable material from the New Testament.2 What? There is historically reliable material in the New Testament? Shouldn’t we just accept Christianity on faith and leave the reasoning to other aspects of our lives? “You Christians would have it made if you would just admit that your faith is just that: faith.” No thank you. I did not become a Christian merely based on feelings and emotions. (please see endnote on explanation of “faith”)3 Plus, Paul, in the New Testament, says

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. I Corinthians 15: 14-15

I do not see a lot of room for debate here. The passage is clear. It goes on to talk more specifically about the general idea of resurrection, but it also makes a clear statement about “just believing.” It doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for a postmodern philosophy of each narrative (religion, community, place and time in history) containing the same amount of truth for those who participate; ie. “All religions have truths.” Our narrative denounces itself if it is not the truth!

As Christians, we should be committed to seeking truth and wisdom. Check these out:

Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:6-7

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer. Proverbs 9:12

Okay, so now I am little off the subject, which was originally about using the New Testament to glean truths, at least in the same manner as any other ancient document. Why should I accept a double standard regarding the history in the New Testament? In discussing the New Testament, Christian and skeptic alike should be able to use the same standards in scrutinizing the history of the text.4 Now I am interested in discovering if there is another ancient document (2nd century or earlier) with at least the same amount of sources (enemy attestation, multiple, independent sources, eyewitness testimony, etc.) and early manuscripts as the New Testament. At this point, I do not know of one.

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

Mary Jo

_______________________________________

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.45

2 I have listed a couple more of Gary Habermas’ sources here for further investigation:

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 2003.

________. Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?
Available from http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

________. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Gary Habermas. Available from www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

________. Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection. Available from
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

3 Faith is much more complex than the treatment given here. I am referring to the skeptic’s view of faith (un-reasoned belief), not the deep complexity of faith that develops in a Christian; faith including heart, soul, mind, and strength.

4 While I believe the Bible to be trustworthy and inspired, I cannot expect a skeptic or non-believer to do the same, which is why I have presented my case in this manner.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007