Dearbhteachd an Tiomnadh Nuadh.

Opponents of Christianity often say the sacred Christian texts are not reliable. But an examination of the evidence that is now available proves the opposite. Tha an fhianais airson fìrinneachd nan teacsaichean sin fada nas motha na ann an sgrìobhainn chudromach sam bith eile den aon aois. The main arguments are briefly summarised below. Click on the links for more detailed discussions.

1. Reason for the dispute.

For many centuries the reliability of the New Testament documents was seldom challenged. But at the beginning of the 20th century a group of historians, known as the ‘higher critics’, gained widespread academic acceptance. They claimed that these documents were gradually adapted over a period of more than 100 bliadhna. Ach, more recent discoveries have refuted this theory. Nowadays, historians generally accept that these documents were written during the lifetimes of Jesus’ first disciples.

2. More reliable than all other writings from that era.

Before we think about the message in the Christian texts, we must ask another question. Are these texts a reliable copy of the original? Opponents of Christianity often say these texts are not reliable. But these people are very badly mistaken. There is a huge amount of historical evidence available to answer this question. It can be compared with the evidence used to confirm other ancient documents. And what does this show? The Christian texts are far more reliable than any other book from that era. Sir Frederick Kenyon (the director and chief librarian at the British Museum) said this:

“… 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.”

“… the final basis for any doubt has now been removed. The Scriptures we have are substantially the same as the original texts. The Christian texts are genuine historical artefacts. Their message has not been altered. It can now be considered an established fact.”

3. Evidence from early church sources.

These were people who had personal knowledge of the apostles and other founding members of the early church. They were ready to die for their testimony. These sources show that various letters written by Paul are the earliest texts in the New Testament. Then, Matthew wrote the first gospel. Air adhart, Mark wrote his gospel. (He had worked as an interpreter for Peter.) Luke often travelled with Paul. Luke wrote his gospel later, and then wrote the book of Acts. The last gospel was written by the apostle John.

4. Estimated dates of the New Testament texts.

At present, most scholars think Luke was written about 63-70CE, and Mark about 60CE. Most of them think John’s gospel was written about 90CE. Some recent books suggest earlier dates: Mark 50CE, Matthew 55CE, Luke 59CE, Acts 63CE. Some scholars, such as J.A.T. Robinson and Thiering, now suggest that John’s gospel was written before Mark’s gospel. All these dates clearly place the gospel texts within the lifetime of the Christians and other people who personally witnessed Jesus’ life and ministry.

Some scholars have questioned the authenticity of letters written to the early Christian churches. But most sceptics accept the letters of Paul that are listed below.Historians usually agree that the letters were written within a few years of the dates given below.

51CE – 1 Thessalonians

52CE – 2 Thessalonians

53CE – Galatians

55CE – 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians

57CE – Ròmanaich

60CE – Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon

61CE – Philippians

5. How were the books of the Christian Bible selected?

In the first century there was no plan to make a list of officially recognised texts. This process only began in the middle of the second century. By this time a variety of later texts had been written. Some were fake, and others were false teachings. So action was necessary. By the end of the second century there was a broad consensus about those books which should be endorsed. This list of books was officially confirmed in the fourth century. All these books were written by first-generation Christians. The other books were either from the second century, or of questionable authenticity.

6. Did the Gospel writers copy from each other?

John’s Gospel is very different from the other three. John tells the story a different way and does not describe all the same events that the others did. But Matthew, Mark and Luke contain quite a lot of passages that are very similar to each other. Historians agree these three writers used some shared source material. But they have different opinions about how these three books were written. One theory was that Matthew and Luke added their own observations to Mark’s gospel. But there are similarities and differences between each gospel. There is no theory about copying one gospel from another that can properly explain all these differences.

7. Early Accounts of Jesus.

Luke openly acknowledges the existence of earlier verbal and written sources. So it is likely that Matthew, Mark and Luke used these texts as a basis for their own gospels. Those early texts were not preserved. We can only speculate about how these texts had been arranged. Some popular theories claim they taught things that were very different from the gospels. But these suggestions contradict the known historical evidence. These suggestions tell us the prejudices of the people who made them. They tell us very little about the real historical Jesus. (This article also discusses ‘Q’, ‘The Gospel of Thomas’ agus ‘The Gospel of Sayings’.)

8. If the Gospel writers cited other sources, does this make the gospels untrustworthy?

Would the gospel authors quote from reports that others had written? Of course – provided they were satisfied with their accuracy. They clearly believe the gospels are a true and reliable description of the life and ministry of Jesus. And there is plenty of evidence that the gospel writers had direct knowledge of the facts. This is confirmed by linguistic analysis. Variations between the texts reveal the differing viewpoints of individual eyewitness accounts. And the texts contain a lot of historical and cultural information that was lost to later writers.