In 1979 Charles Templeton wrote a book called "Act of God" in which the fictional archaeologist says this: "The church basis its claims almost entirely on the teaching of an obscure young Jew with messianic pretensions who, lets face it, didn't make much of an impression in his lifetime. There isn't a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. Not a mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus."

More recently Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code has made similar claims about the reliability of the Bible. As one of his characters says: "What happens if persuasive scientific evidence comes out that the church's version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold." It raises the question can I trust the Bible?. A set of documents written thousands of years ago, and passed on through the ages? Surely they'll be biased or corrupted?

When it comes to ancient documents there are a number of ways of testing their reliability. Are there a significant number of copies, the more copies the more likely they are to be reliable. Are those copies accurate when compared to each other, the more similar they are the more likely they are to be genuine. What is the interval between the original and the surviving copies? The smaller the gap the more reliable the documents.

The best way to see how reliable the New Testament is is by comparing and contrasting it with other ancient documents.

	No of Copies	Interval (years)
Homer	643	500
Sophocles	193	1400
Plato	7	1200
Caesar	10	1000
New Testament	24,000	40-90

But can we trust what we find there, surely it will be full of errors and disputed passages and the like. Surely the Text can't be reliable

	No of lines in doubt	% of work
Homer's Iliad	764	5
New Testament	40	0.5

Even then none of those lines concern any major doctrine or teaching of the Christian faith.

So the Bible is reliable as a source document, furthermore those who wrote it were either eyewitnesses; John and Matthew were disciples of Jesus, Mark is thought to be Peter's account and Luke tells us he interviewed those who were eyewitnesses. But what about bias? Surely I can't trust what they say about Jesus? Well the gospels are not exact copies of each other, they are separate accounts with subtle differences but they testify together about who Jesus is and do not contradict one another. They also are warts and all accounts of the lives of those who would go on to set up the church, recounting their doubts, fears and failings.

But what about corroborating evidence? Is the Bible reliable? Can I trust what I find there or is it propaganda? Is there any outside proof, any corroborating evidence? Yes is the answer and it comes from those who were hostile to Christianity. Josephus, a Jewish historian, Tacitus and Pliny the younger all write about Jesus or about what his followers believed and their willingness to die for those beliefs. Jewish literature of the day also records events from Jesus life.

From these accounts, without even looking at a gospel, you can learn that:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher
2. Many believed he performed healings and exorcisms.
3. Some believed he was the Messiah.
4. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders.
5. He was crucified by Pilate during Tiberius reign.
6. Despite crucifixion his followers believed he was alive.
7. Belief was widespread both geographically and socially.

These things have led leading scholars to make the following conclusions:
"The New Testament [is] unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use."
B Warfield, Introduction to Textual criticism of the New Testament.

Of the New Testament Clifford Wilson, a prominent archaeologist said: "Those who know the facts now recognise that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book."
It is the place to go to find out about Jesus!

Christianity & Culture