The New Testament is full of historical inaccuracies [Answered]

 

The New Testament is full of historical inaccuracies.

Actually, where the New Testament accounts can be verified or checked by external, contemporary sources, they are consistently accurate. (If they can’t be verified or checked, and they bear the marks of good history writing—which they do—how can anyone claim that they are inaccurate?) So, the real question is: What contemporary historical records are there that contradict the New Testament authors? In point of fact, there are none. It should also be pointed out that out of all ancient documents, the New Testament was the best preserved.

This objection has been treated fairly and fully in other, more general studies, such as those cited in what follows, and I encourage readers who are interested in a more in-depth treatment to study those sources, since this volume is directed in particular to Jewish objections to the New Testament. Nonetheless, it will be useful to provide a general response to this objection, offering some specific details in support. We will then consider two, specifically Jewish objections that have been raised against the trustworthiness of the New Testament before looking briefly at Stephen’s speech as recorded in Acts 7.

First, let me share with you the story of Sir William M. Ramsay (1851–1939), famed as the once-skeptical New Testament scholar and archaeologist who became a staunch believer in the historical accuracy of the New Testament. He was educated in Scotland (University of Aberdeen) and England (Oxford University), during which time he became enamored with the extremely critical scholarship of the F. C. Baur school of Tübingen, Germany.

As a result of this, in 1890, he embarked on a journey through the biblical lands in order to confirm the historical errors of the New Testament writers. To his great surprise, he found that, at point after point, archeological data and sound historical scholarship confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament authors, and he wrote several important volumes that are still used to this day.⁹⁵ Subsequent scholarship over the last century has brought further confirmation to Ramsay’s writings. Ramsay explained:

It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative [of Luke in Acts] showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.⁹⁶

In other words, historical details in Luke’s writings helped provide Ramsay with reliable bearings for some of his other historical and archeological investigations. He concluded that, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”⁹⁷

In refuting anti-missionary attacks on the reliability of the New Testament, Eric Snow provided three tests against which the New Testament’s credibility could be tested: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test.⁹⁸ Let’s take these one at a time with specific application to the historical accuracy of the New Covenant Writings.

The bibliographical test. As Snow explains,

The bibliographical test has two parts: First, on average, the more handwritten manuscript copies there are of an ancient historical document, the more reliable it is. [Second], the closer in time the oldest presently existing manuscript that has survived is to the original first copy (autograph) of the author, the more reliable that document is. That’s because then less time is allowed for distortions to creep into the text by scribes down through the generations who are copying by hand (before, in Europe, Gutenberg’s perfection of printing using moveable type by c. 1440).⁹⁹

How does the New Testament score on this test? The highly respected biblical scholar F. F. Bruce summarizes the evidence:

About the middle of the [nineteenth] century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century ad. This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions.

Even then there was sufficient historical evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a first century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.

So then, 150 years ago there were critical scholars claiming that “some of the most important books of the New Testament” did not even exist before roughly one hundred years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Archeological discoveries, however, coupled with sound scientific methodology, made this skeptical position untenable to the point that “a first century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.” Bruce continues:

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a “sacred book” as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing.

From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.

How interesting! If we were not dealing with a sacred text, and if, instead, “the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” What then is the evidence? According to Bruce:

There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about ad 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum.

Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.

How does this compare with the manuscript evidence from other ancient writings? If you are not familiar with this information, you are in for quite a surprise:

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 bc) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 bc–ad 17) only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii–vi, is as old as the fourth century.

Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. ad 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century.

The History of Thucydides (c. 460–400 bc) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. ad 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488–428 bc). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

Did you catch that? The oldest reliable manuscripts from these important historical works date to 1,300 years after the originals were written—1,300 years!—yet no respected historian would “listen to an argument” questioning their authenticity. Bruce then explains:

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still.

The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul’s letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.

A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than ad 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935).

These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, “that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories.”

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31–33, 37–38, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around ad 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between ad 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about ad 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.

This is extraordinary. Contrary to the evidence from the classical writings in which the major manuscripts postdate the original autographs by more than a millennium, there are fragments of the New Testament preserved in manuscripts dating back to just a few decades after the writing of the original, with major manuscripts dating to within one to two centuries.

Yet there is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament documents:

Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between ad 90 and 160, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament.

In three works whose date is probably round about ad 100—the “Epistle of Barnabas,” written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about ad 96—find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament.

In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in ad 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to Mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.

His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings.

So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

Nor is it only in orthodox Christian writers that we find evidence of this sort. It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church.¹⁰⁰

Again, this evidence is quite striking, to say the least. Not only did the early followers of Jesus, writing between 90–160 c.e. show “acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament,” quoting many passages in their writing, but even heretical leaders were using these books “before the middle of the second century.” This means that the collection of books we read today in what is commonly called “the New Testament” is the same collection that was read and revered 1,900 years ago.

Scholars who evaluate evidence such as this are called “textual critics,” as Bruce explains:

The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two dips at least.

When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remain among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:

“The interval then between the date of original composition and the earliest extant evidence become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”¹⁰¹

How then do the New Testament writings pass the bibliographic test? With flying colors! In fact, in comparison with all other ancient books written in Greek or Latin, if the New Testament writings scored an A+, using the same criterion, the best of the other books would barely pass the test. For those who would point to the care with which the Tanakh has been copied and preserved through the centuries—and I certainly concur that God has superintended the careful preservation of his entire Word, both the Tanakh and the New Covenant Writings—a comparison with the New Testament is also enlightening.

Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the middle of the last century, the oldest complete manuscript of the Tanakh dated from the tenth century c.e.—in other words, more than 1,300 years after the writing of the last book! This is because older manuscripts were buried or hidden away, but the fact remains that the oldest known complete manuscript was quite late.

Of course, the scribes were meticulous in their writing habits, providing counts of every letter, word, and sentence at the end of their work, also counting the middle letter, word, and sentence just to verify their accuracy.

I certainly thank God for the jealousy with which this was done! Yet when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they provided evidence of: (1) Hebrew manuscripts which agreed with the later Masoretic tradition letter for letter (these manuscripts were not for complete books but for fragments); (2) Hebrew manuscripts showing a more full spelling of words (similar to the older, British spelling of words like “colour” and “favour” as opposed to our American spelling) and a less precise scribal style; (3) Hebrew manuscripts which agreed in part with the Septuagint tradition; (4) Hebrew manuscripts (of parts of the Torah) which agreed in part with the tradition preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch (see also, above, 5.1).

So, the Hebrew Bible was not preserved without variant readings and traditions either (not to mention the thousands of very minor variations found within the Masoretic tradition), and scholars working with the Hebrew Scriptures also engage in the science of textual criticism, just as do scholars of the Greek Scriptures.

What this means for a twenty-first-century reader of the New Testament is simply this: You can be totally confident that the books you are reading are the books that were written more than 1,900 years ago and there is no issue of substance affected by any textual variants.

The internal evidence test. Snow explains the second of his three tests for credibility:

The internal evidence test involves analyzing the document itself for contradictions and self-evident absurdities. How close in time and place the writer of the document was to the events and people he describes is examined: The bigger the gap, the less likely it is reliable.¹⁰²

How do the books of the New Testament score on this test? First, it is clear that the authors, who, for the most part, claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events they recorded, give clear evidence to their close proximity to the public ministry, death, and resurrection of the Messiah, along with the subsequent events that transpired over the course of the next two to three decades. With regard to the Gospel accounts, New Testament scholar Craig Keener pointed out:

On the continuum between more and less careful writers, the writers of the Gospels are among the most careful.… The first Gospels were written when eyewitnesses were still in positions of authority in the church and oral tradition could be checked, and this supports their reliability; biographies of roughly contemporary characters were normally far more accurate than those concerning heroes of the distant past.¹⁰³

In the case of the New Testament, the writers show a strong familiarity with the places, customs, and even language of the day, on several occasions making reference to Aramaic sentences spoken by Yeshua (see Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:34), on other occasions using Hebrew or Aramaic expressions that would not have been understandable to a later, more distant audience (for these words on the lips of Jesus, see, e.g., Matthew 5:22 [raka, geenna]; 6:24 [mamōnas]; Mark 14:36 [abba]; also Matthew 27:6 [korbanas]; Luke 1:15 [sikera]; John 5:2 [bēthzatha]; John 19:13 [Gabbatha]; Mark 10:51; John 20:16 [rabbouni]), and often providing details about geographical location or local customs or events (see, e.g., Matt. 27:6–8 [Field of Blood]; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29; John 1:28; 11:18 [Bethany]; John 5:2–4 [Pool of Bethesda]; Luke 13:1–4 [Galilean blood mixed with sacrifices and tower of Siloam]; John 19:13 [Stone Pavement]; Luke 24:13 [Emmaus seven miles from Jerusalem]; John 11:18 [Bethany less than two miles from Jerusalem]; John 4:4–6 [location of Jacob’s well]). All this points to the work of eyewitnesses.

Some scholars also point to the legal disputes that took place between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders, disputes that would fit well into an early first-century context when Jewish law reflected more diversity and fluidity (see the arguments of Dr. John Fischer, presented in vol. 5, 6.15). It would have been difficult for later writers to have retrojected these disputes into their earlier cultural setting.

The New Testament historical books also bear other marks of accurate and honest accounts, such as: (1) The preserving of examples of the disciples’ spiritual dullness and even failure (see, e.g., Matt. 16:22–23; 17:16–20, 24–27; 26:69–75; 28:17; Mark 4:40; 6:52; 8:17–21; Luke 8:25; 9:33, 46–50; 24:9–12; John 20:24–25). This is quite significant, given the fact that these men became the leaders of the new spiritual community, with Peter at the forefront. Yet it is Peter who is repeatedly singled out for his rash words and actions, while the other disciples are often seen as immature or struggling in their faith.

This stands in stark contrast to other religious literature, including the apocryphal gospel accounts that turned some of these leaders into supermen. Even the Book of Acts, which shows how God mightily used Saul of Tarsus (Paul), points to a dispute that arose between him and Barnabas, without it being resolved (Acts 15:36–41). This is not the kind of stuff of which late, falsified legends are made, ones which smooth over difficulties like this. (2) There are sayings of Jesus preserved which could be taken to mean that his return was expected within the lifetimes of his disciples (see below, 5.22).

This, of course, is not an accurate reading of the texts, but it is highly unlikely that a later, believing author would create such sayings and put them on the lips of the Savior. The very fact that they are recorded lends credence to their authenticity. (3) Although many outstanding miracles are recorded in the Gospels and Acts, they are marked by sobriety and lack of sensationalism, especially when compared to the apocryphal gospels. As noted by J. N. D. Anderson:

And who can read about the appearance to Mary Magdalene, or the incident where the risen Christ joined two disciples on an afternoon walk to Emmaus, or the time when Peter and John raced each other to the tomb—who can read these stories and really think they’re legend? They are far too dignified and restrained; they are far too true to life and psychology.

The difference between them and the sort of stories you find in the apocryphal gospels of but two or three centuries later is a difference between heaven and earth.¹⁰⁴

(4) The apparent contradictions preserved within the Gospels indicate that later authors or editors did not try to smooth things out and produce an airtight, perfectly harmonious narrative. Rather, traditions were accurately preserved and written down, giving evidence to the differing perspectives of several eyewitnesses telling the same story.

(For an extremely minor example, see Matthew 17:1 [cf. Mark 9:2], “After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves,” and Luke 9:28, “About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray” [my emphasis in both].

Two people could easily describe the same event with these two time frames, and no one would think that their whole story was skewed because of the differences in expression.)¹⁰⁵ And the apparent contradictions in the Gospels are by no means insuperable, especially when compared to some apparent contradictions in the Tanakh (see the appendix in vol. 5, “Unequal Weights and Measures,” for more on this). As noted by Blomberg:

The student who takes the time to read any three reliable historians’ accounts of other ancient figures or events will frequently find much more variation among them than he encounters in the Synoptics [meaning, Matthew, Mark, and Luke]. All these observations [summarizing his earlier findings] add up to a strong case for the historical accuracy of the first three gospels. Those who disagree may be invited to reconsider their methodology and to reflect on the possibility that they are treating the biblical documents more harshly than is warranted.¹⁰⁶

One fifth-century follower of Yeshua pointed out that there is an amazing overall harmony which exists in the Gospel accounts of our Messiah. He stated that any apparent discrepancies which might be noticed could be explained only if we understood that each of the eyewitnesses was accurately reporting what he saw and heard.

Thus, if we ourselves were there at the time the event occurred, we would see how perfectly all the pieces of the puzzle fit together to form one clear picture of the life and teaching of the Son of God. Therefore, rather than being evidence of poor memory and lies, the different perspectives of the various New Covenant authors help us realize just how accurate their accounts really were.

To summarize: Based on the internal evidence test, the New Testament scores very well once again, and those who put their trust in the veracity of its witness have every reason to feel secure.¹⁰⁷

The external evidence test. Snow defines this third of his three tests for credibility as follows:

The external evidence test checks the document’s reliability by comparing it to other documents on the same subjects, seeing whether its statements differ from theirs. Archeological evidence also figures into this test, since many Biblical sites and people can be confirmed by what archeologists have dug up in the Middle East and the Mediterranean Basin.¹⁰⁸

It was this test that led to the transformation in the thinking of Sir William Ramsey, discussed above, who went from cynic to committed believer based on archeological and historical evidence.

Because this has been treated at such length in other studies, I will only provide the smallest sampling of material, focusing on the medical doctor Luke, who was responsible for writing the Gospel account that bears his name along with the Book of Acts and is, therefore, the primary historian of the New Covenant Writings. As Eric Snow points out, other scholars have learned that “whenever Luke could be checked, he has repeatedly proven to be correct.”¹⁰⁹

“But,” you say, “I’ve actually heard the opposite, specifically with regard to Luke. According to what I’ve read, Luke really messes things up badly, especially in the opening chapters of his book. In fact, when he talks about the birth of Jesus, he’s got the Roman names and dates confused.”

Actually, there are some critics who hold to this position, and liberal commentators have often stated this freely. A more careful investigation, however, yields different results. As an example, then, of how the external evidence test in no way disproves the New Testament writings, here are some specific details provided by F. F. Bruce that deal with the very objection you are raising:

The reference in Luke 2:2 to Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of the birth of Christ (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 bc) has frequently been thought to be an error, because Quirinius is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in ad 6, and to have supervised in that year the enrolment mentioned in Acts 5:37, which provoked the insurrection led by Judas of Galilee.

But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrolment, as described in Luke 2:1 ff., (a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great, (b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home, (c) may have formed part of an Empire wide census, and (d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.

(a) Josephus informs us that towards the end of Herod’s reign (37–34 bc) the Emperor Augustus treated him “more as a subject than as a friend,” and that all Judaea took an oath of allegiance to Augustus as well as to Herod. The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judaea was during Herod’s reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.

(b) The obligation on all persons to be enrolled at their domiciles of origin, which made it necessary for Joseph to return to Bethlehem, has been illustrated from an edict of ad 104, in which C. Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, gives notice as follows: “The enrolment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause whatsoever are away from their administrative divisions to return home in order to comply with the customary ordinance of enrolment, and to remain in their own agricultural land.”

(c) There is scattered evidence of the holding of enrolments in various parts of the Empire between 11 and 8 bc, the papyrus evidence in the case of Egypt being practically conclusive.

(d) There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in ad 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate. The first occasion was when he commanded an expedition against the Homanadensians, a mountain tribe of Asia Minor, some time between 12 and 6 bc. But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date.

Sir William Ramsay argued that the province was Syria. We have, however, a continuous record of governors of Syria for those years, which leaves no room for Quirinius; Ramsay suggested that he was appointed as additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes. On the other hand, a good case has been made out for believing that his first term of office as imperial legate was passed in Galatia, not in Syria.

The question is not yet finally decided, but it may be best to follow those commentators and grammarians who translate Luke 2:2 as “This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held.”

Another supposed mistake has been detected by some in Luke 3:1, where Lysanias is said to have been tetrarch of Abilene (west of Damascus) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (ad 27–28), whereas the only Lysanias of Abilene otherwise known from ancient history bore the title of king and was executed by order of Mark Antony in 34 bc. Evidence of a later Lysanias who had the status of tetrarch has, however, been forthcoming from an inscription recording the dedication of a temple “for the salvation of the Lords Imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch.”

The reference to “the Lords Imperial”—a joint title given only to the Emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia, the widow of Augustus—fixes the date of the inscription between ad 14 (the year of Tiberius’ accession) and 29 (the year of Livia’s death). On the strength of this and other evidence we may well be satisfied with the verdict of the historian Eduard Meyer, that Luke’s reference to Lysanias is “entirely correct.”¹¹⁰

Similar examples could be cited at length, but this much can be said for the external evidence test: In many cases, it has proved strong enough to convert skeptics; in all cases, it is strong enough to support the faith of a serious-minded, thinking believer.¹¹¹

Before closing this section, which, again, is intended to be representative rather than comprehensive, we will examine briefly three charges often brought by Jews who do not believe in Yeshua: First, that the picture of Pontius Pilate is completely at odds with historical facts and that it has been falsified so as to make the Jews look like the killers of Christ.

Second, in keeping with the theme of Jewish culpability, the New Testament writers went out of their way to make the Jews look bad by changing other key historical facts, seen even within the New Testament itself. Third, that the New Testament can make no claim to historical reliability in light of the many errors in Stephen’s speech.

As for the first argument, Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a prolific author, well-known media figure, and my debating opponent for several years, expressed this view with passion in one of our debates:

Pontius Pilate, according to every modern and ancient historian, was the cruelest Proconsul the Romans ever put into Judea.… a man described by King Agrippa in a letter to the Emperor Caligula [as], “A man who harbors acts of violence, plunderings, abuses, provocations, corruption, continual murders of persons untried, uncondemned, never ending unbelievable cruelties gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity.”

Philo, one of the most important figures of the entire ancient world, speaking about Pilate says, “[He] was an unbending and recklessly hard character, famous for corruptibility, violence, robberies, ill treatment of the people, grievances, continued execution without any form of trial, endless and intolerable cruelties.”

… If you don’t believe me about the nature of Pontius Pilate, read Luke 13:1, where it is related that Pilate massacred huge groups of Galileans who were worshiping in the Temple. Of course, Jesus was a Galilean.

Read Josephus, who says that Pilate was so cruel that he had to be recalled by Rome in the year 36, because a Samaritan prophet had gained a large following and brought them up to a holy mountain, and Pilate slaughtered all 4,000 of them. Can you imagine how cruel you have to be for the ancient Romans to consider you cruel?¹¹²

Yet, according to the Gospels, he is seen as vacillating, wanting to let Jesus go free, being swayed by a dream from his wife in which she was convinced of Jesus’ innocence, finally bowing to the will of the hostile Jewish crowd. (For a discussion of Matthew 27:25, see vol. 1, 154–56.) How should we respond to this apparent discrepancy?

In the just-cited excerpt from my debate with Rabbi Boteach, I responded as follows:

Let’s take a moment and ask the question, Is the New Testament picture of Pilate accurate?

Never does the New Testament exonerate him. Acts 4[:27] plainly says that he was involved in Jesus’ death. All of the early church creeds—they don’t mention the Jews—they say “He suffered under Pontius Pilate.” Paul, the alleged one that had all the stories wrong, he says again in 1 Timothy 6[:13] that Jesus stood firm before Pilate.

The picture of Pilate in the New Testament is tremendously accurate. What did we hear [from Rabbi Boteach]? We heard that [Pilate] hated the Jewish leadership, so the Jewish leadership says, “We want Jesus to be turned over to death.” So what does Pilate do but oppose the leadership because he hates them—the very thing that you would expect him to do.

This guy is so calloused that he says “go ahead and scourge him” even though he thought Jesus was innocent. Scourging would just about kill you. Pilate was convinced Jesus was innocent. His wife had a dream and got spooked and it spooked him. That can happen in a household—can’t it? Pilate was dealing with the Son of God—he’d never met anyone like him.

Even though Pilate believed he was innocent, he still said to go ahead and crucify him. Not only so, but we know from the historical record that Pilate had different problems with the Jewish leadership because of his violence. There were several protests against him to Rome. The New Testament does not say he was moved with compassion, nor that he cared about Jesus. He was afraid there was going to be an uproar.

He didn’t want more trouble under his rule. Even Roman leaders were expected to keep the peace. It makes perfect sense. Some of the top New Testament scholars in the world, who have written massive volumes, going through in detail the accounts of the death of Jesus—say they are accurate and that the portrayal of Pilate is accurate. They also note that sometimes the more power someone has the more weak they are on the inside, and Jesus confronted that in Pilate, and he did not know how to handle it.¹¹³

Consider also the comments of D. A. Carson, from which I drew some of my thoughts:

Extrabiblical sources portray Pilate as a cruel, imperious, and insensitive ruler who hated his Jewish subjects and took few pains to understand them (e.g., Jos. Antiq. XVIII, 35 [ii.2], 55–62 [iii.12], 177–78 [vi.5]; War II, 169–77 [ix.2–4]; Philo, ad Gaium 38; cf. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, pp. 172–83). He stole korban (see on 15:5) money to build an aqueduct; and when the population of Jerusalem rioted in protest, he sent in soldiers who killed many. He defiled Jerusalem more than once (cf. Luke 13:1).

These known facts about Pilate are often thought to render the Gospel accounts incredible, for here Pilate is portrayed as weak, ineffectual, and cowardly, judicially fair enough to want to release Jesus but too cowardly to stand up to the Sanhedrin’s browbeating tactics. This transformation of Pilate’s character, it is claimed, results from the evangelists’ desire to exculpate the Romans and condemn the Jews.¹¹⁴

In defense of the biblical witness, he explains:

1. Modern psychology helps us understand that the weak, insecure, selfish man elevated to a position of authority may become despotic and insensitive. Thus the evidence about Pilate may be complementary rather than disjunctive.
2. Pilate hated the Jews and especially the Jewish leaders. In the crisis forced on him by the Sanhedrin, though he may have seemed to be for Jesus, in reality he was probably against the Sanhedrin. His final decision betrayed no trace of sympathy for the Sanhedrin; rather, the Jews’ threat (John 19:12) could well have intimidated so corrupt a man at any point in his career.
3. Jesus was not the criminal or guerrilla fighter with which Pilate was familiar. Jesus’ silence and poise, the wisdom of his brief answers, and the dreams of Pilate’s wife ([Matt. 27:]19) may have prompted less drastic action than Pilate usually took.
4. Arguably, [Matthew 27:]24 does not exculpate Pilate or reserve exclusive blame for the Jews (see on vv. 24–25). Instead, as in v. 35, Matthew uses irony to say that no one connected with this crisis could escape personal responsibility.
5. Both the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate were necessary for capital punishment. Without the Sanhedrin, Pilate would never have taken action against Jesus unless he had become convinced Jesus was a dangerous Zealot leader; without Pilate the Sanhedrin might whip up mob violence against Jesus, but not a legally binding death sentence (cf. John 18:31).¹¹⁵

As to the charge that the New Testament writers reconstructed key events to make the Jews look bad—even murderous—I quote again from the pointed comments of Rabbi Boteach from our debate:

Just to show that there are major changes—this is just one famous example: 2 Corinthians [11:32–33], Paul himself writes, that when he was in Damascus, “the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and I escaped his hand.” So Paul says that the pagan king of Syria wanted him dead because he was subversive. Look at how the exact same story is retold in Acts 9:22–25.… “But Saul increased all the more in strength and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket.” The original story by Paul is, the pagan king who is a vassal of Rome wants him dead. As soon as it is rewritten… it is the Jews who want him dead. Well surprise, surprise!

Then we have a similar story in Mark 12:28, where Jesus is teaching, and the Sadducees ask him a question. He gives a good response: “and one of the Scribes (Pharisees) came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that Jesus answered them well” [it’s a very positive story] “he said, ‘Master, which commandment is the greatest of all?’ ” So Jesus said, “Love your God with all your heart and all your soul.” And the Scribe said to him, “You are right, teacher. You have truly said that he is one and there is no other but he.” It demonstrates a very warm relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees.

Jesus ends the exchange by saying, “You are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Look at how the exact same exchange is retold in Matthew 22:33: “The crowd heard Jesus and they were astonished at his teaching. But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees” [now it’s already contentious] “they came together” [now they are plotting—the Pharisees were always plotting against Jesus] “and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.” It’s the exact same story, but gone is the warm, friendly exchange. Now the Rabbis are in a debate, trying to prove that Jesus is an ignoramus.

This is clear-cut editing of earlier stories, especially because we know Mark was the first Gospel and Matthew came after. This is clear-cut editing just to make the Rabbis look bad.¹¹⁶

Regarding these last comments, what then is the explanation to Mark 3:6, which states that, after Jesus healed on the Sabbath and rebuked the religious leaders publicly, “Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus”? It seems that Mark was quite aware of these conflicts too! See also Mark 7:1–13, which contains a very strong rebuke of the Pharisees; 8:11–12, which recounts an attempt by the Pharisees to test Jesus; 8:15, with a warning against the “yeast” of the Pharisees (and that of Herod); and 10:2–9, yet another account of the Pharisees trying to test Jesus.

Matthew and Mark agree! (If you simply read the accounts in full in Mark 12 and Matthew 22, you will see that here too, they are in agreement, each one providing some additional, complimentary details, with Matthew simply emphasizing that this interaction did, in fact, take place in the midst of a somewhat hostile dialogue.)

What about the discrepancies between Acts 9:22–25 and 2 Corinthians 11:31–32? Do these point to an intentional rewriting of the accounts? Certainly not. First, Paul himself makes reference to conflicts he had with his own Jewish people in this very same chapter in 2 Corinthians, stating just a few verses earlier, “Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one” (11:24; see also 11:26, “in danger from my own countrymen”).

He is hardly glossing over the persecution he endured from his people! For related statements in his writings, see especially 1 Thessalonians 2:14 (cf. vol. 1, 164–67, for more on this verse).

Why then didn’t Paul implicate the Jewish opposition in 2 Corinthians 11:31–32, as Luke did? Could it be that Luke changed things? Actually, the two accounts work together perfectly well, with Acts 9 explaining 2 Corinthians 11. That is to say, there would have been little reason for King Aretas (and/or his governor) to have wanted to apprehend Paul if he had not been stirring up trouble of some kind. It would appear, then, that as his preaching stirred up heavy opposition from some of the Jews there, to the point of creating dissension, this came to the attention of the king and/or governor, who then wanted him arrested.

At the same time, Luke records that the Jewish opposition wanted him dead and watched the gates carefully to guard against his escape, hence, his exit from the city with the help of a basket lowered through a break in the wall. Is this so hard to believe? Is this some kind of insuperable contradiction? Is this a major proof of later, anti-Jewish editing? I doubt it would hold much weight in a court of law.

On a separate note, I find it interesting that no one accuses the New Testament of being anti-Semitic when it speaks of Saul of Tarsus violently opposing the faith and persecuting followers of Jesus to their death, even though Saul was a Jew. Why then is it accused of being anti-Semitic when it states that other Jews wanted Saul’s death once he became a believer? (For more on the question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament, see below, 5.20, and, more fully, vol. 1, 2.6–2.8.)

Finally, we turn to Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin, one which is supposedly riddled with historical error. How could this be possible for this Jewish man who, according to Acts, was “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5) and “full of God’s grace and power” (6:8) and of whom it is recorded that the Jews who opposed him “could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke” (6:10)?

Their answer is quite simple: First, some of the contradictions are only apparent such as Acts 7:14, where Stephen says, “Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all,” whereas “Genesis 46:27 (MT) sets the figure at seventy (i.e., sixty-six plus Jacob, Joseph, and the latter’s two sons).”¹¹⁷ This, however, presents no difficulty, and, as has often been pointed out, “Genesis 46:27 in the LXX, for example, does not include Jacob and Joseph but does include nine sons of Joseph in the reckoning, thereby arriving at ‘seventy-five souls’ all together who went down to Egypt.

And with this number both Exodus 1:5 (LXX) and 4QExod^a at 1:5 agree.”¹¹⁸ So then, a Hebrew, biblical scroll from Qumran along with the LXX both counted the number at seventy-five rather than seventy, so Stephen was in good company with his figures here. This is hardly an error!

Second, as Orthodox Jewish professor James Kugel has noted, Stephen, in common with other contemporary Jews, was also drawing on a rich exegetical tradition that had been growing within his nation for several centuries, and some of that tradition is reflected in Stephen’s comments;¹¹⁹ and third, just because he was anointed and empowered by the Spirit did not mean that he was reciting history by infallible, divine inspiration! As one who holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, I believe that Luke accurately related what Stephen said, and that Luke’s record was inspired by God and without error.

But on what basis should I believe that Stephen got every detail right in his wide-ranging historical presentation, especially if some of the apparent contradictions seemingly reflect variant Jewish traditions? (To be sure, there are some scholars who argue that every apparent discrepancy can be fully resolved, but, as stated, I see no reason to argue for this here.)

Yes, it is true that Stephen’s “face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) while he was speaking and that, before he was killed, it is recorded that he, “full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (7:55). But does this mean that he used perfect grammar when he spoke, or that when he quoted the Scriptures, he did not paraphrase the text? Of course not! Rather, it means that God was mightily with him as he called our people to account, pointing out our historic sins against the Spirit—with exactitude and precision—and calling our leadership to account for their rejection of the Messiah.

The Spirit was backing that message, and if there were any errors in his presentation in terms of the details of some peripheral accounts—and again, this is debatable—it is remarkable that Acts records things just as he said them, without glossing over the difficulties. I challenge any critic to demonstrate that Stephen’s speech had to be infallible in all historic details simply because he was a man anointed by God in his ministry.

I find it interesting that Kugel, formerly a professor at Yale but now teaching at the Orthodox Jewish Bar Ilan University in Israel, did not emphasize the apparent discrepancies in Stephen’s account—and his purpose was decidedly not apologetic. Rather, he concluded that:

Much more could be said about the exegetical background of this speech; indeed, a thorough treatment of the subject could, without exaggeration, fill a book. The angel who “spoke to [Moses] at Mount Sinai” (Acts 7:38 rsv), “law as delivered by angels” (7:53 rsv), and a great many other of Stephen’s exempla might likewise be shown to reflect other well-known exegetical motifs. [Kugel is speaking here of Jewish, exegetical motifs.]¹²⁰

To offer one specific example, Kugel treats Stephen’s statement in 7:14–16 that is commonly cited as a clear error on his part. Again, there are those who claim that the error can be resolved, but Kugel is not one of them. Rather, he finds the larger issue raised by Stephen there to be grounded in contemporary Jewish traditions:

All this is to say that, in however garbled a form, the references in Acts 7:14–16 to the removal of Jacob and “our fathers” reflects a substantial body of already existing extrabiblical material. “Our fathers” refers specifically to Joseph’s brothers, whose bodies were removed before his but sometime after the transfer of Jacob’s last remains to Hebron. Indeed, it is certainly significant that the same phrase, “our fathers,” occurs in the first Qumran document cited above [namely, 4Q545 Visions of Amram], apparently in the same sense.¹²¹

Thus, even in Stephen’s often-criticized speech, there is more going on than meets the eye, and that based on ancient Jewish interpretive traditions.

To return, then, to the larger objection, namely, that the New Testament is full of historical inaccuracies, those who put their trust in its record can rest assured that this is not the case, while those who are still questioning will find plenty of additional, confidence-building evidence in the works cited in this section.

The bottom line is this: Some of the greatest minds this world has ever seen have devoted their entire lives to the careful study of the New Testament text and some of history’s greatest skeptics have attacked it. There is nothing new that today’s critics will discover. The New Covenant has endured the test of time. It continues to be worthy of our faith.

⁹⁵ For a summary of his work, see W. W. Ward Gasque, Sir William Ramsay, Archeologist and New Testament Scholar: A Survey of his Contribution to the Study of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966).

⁹⁶ W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 222, cited in Snow, Zeal for God, 91.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 239, cited in Snow, Zeal for God, 90.

⁹⁸ See Snow, Zeal for God, 19–21, for the summary; much of his book is devoted to using these tests on the biblical evidence. On a more popular, nontechnical level, see Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1979), 39–74.

⁹⁹ Snow, Zeal for God, 20.

¹⁰⁰ Note that by “the Catholic Church” Bruce is referring to all true believers at that time rather than the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.

¹⁰¹ Sir Frederic Kenyon, quoted in F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 9–15, emphasis mine. See online version of Bruce’s work at http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm.

¹⁰² Snow, Zeal for God, 20.

¹⁰³ Keener, IVPNT, 39–40.

¹⁰⁴ “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Christianity Today, 29 March 1968, 6, cited in Snow, Zeal for God, 76. Cf. also Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), 73–112.

¹⁰⁵ As noted on a Messianic Jewish website, “Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, an author of an influential treatise on evidence, studied the consistency among the four Gospel writers. He offered this evaluation: ‘There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.’

From the perspective of a classical historian, German scholar Hans Stier has concurred that agreement over basic data and divergence of details suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistent and harmonized. This is why we find four Gospels (with discrepancies), and not one.” See “Challenging the Anti-Missionaries,” The Refiner’s Fire, http://www.therefinersfire.org/traditional_jewish_assertions.htm.

¹⁰⁶ Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 152; see further 113–52; for John’s Gospel, see 153–89.

¹⁰⁷ The internal evidence test is commonly utilized in popular, nontechnical defenses of the reliability of the Scriptures, such as Josh McDowell’s, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Evidence I and II, revised, updated, and expanded ed. (Nashville: Nelson Reference, 1999).

¹⁰⁸ Snow, Zeal for God, 20–21.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 90, with references.

¹¹⁰ Bruce, The New Testament Documents, 86–88. See online version of Bruce’s work at http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm.

¹¹¹ As noted above, n. 107, with reference to the internal evidence test, the external evidence test is commonly utilized in popular, nontechnical defenses of the reliability of the Scriptures; see again McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, for a widely-used example.

¹¹² From the transcription of our debate of February 10, 2004, prepared by Tomi Kaiser. For the actual debate on video or DVD from ICN Ministries, see http://www.icnministries.org/resources/video.htm.

¹¹³ Ibid.

¹¹⁴ Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:559.

¹¹⁵ Ibid., 8:560.

¹¹⁶ Boteach-Brown debate, February 10, 2004. See above, n. 112.

¹¹⁷ Richard N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:341.

¹¹⁸ Ibid.

¹¹⁹ James L. Kugel, “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7) in Its Exegetical Context,” in Evans and Sanders, From Prophecy to Testament, 206–18.

¹²⁰ Ibid., 218.

¹²¹ Ibid., 216.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (41). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.

The New Testament is full of historical inaccuracies [Answered]