Historicity of the NT:
When exploring the historicity of the NT, we must insightfully examine the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the early epistles of Paul (other documents are obsolete in that they offer no information regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ). Negative criticism of the New Testament is based on pre-archaeological, unproven philosophical presuppositions. Such presuppositions have been disproved by archaeological discoveries.
The evidence for the historicity of the New Testament lies within the number, dating, accuracy and confirmation of the New Testament manuscripts. The number of New Testament manuscripts is overwhelming compared to other books from antiquity (the ancient world). The typical book from antiquity is survived by approximately seven to ten manuscripts. The New Testament has nearly 5,700 Greek manuscripts, which makes it the best textually supported book from antiquity! The book with the second most manuscripts is Homer’s Iliad, with 643 manuscripts. The earliest undisputed manuscript is John Ryland’s Papyri (dated 117-138 a.d.). Most scholars believe it to be composed in 95 a.d. Whole New Testament books are available from 200 a.d. Most New Testament books, including all four gospels, are available after 250 a.d. British manuscript scholar Sir Frederick Kenyon wrote:
“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as 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. Thus, both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
The New Testament has proven itself to be more accurately copied from the original manuscripts than any other book from antiquity. New Testament scholar John A.T. Robinson said:
“The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant, makes it the best attested of any ancient writing in the world.”
Bruce Metzeger, a New Testament scholar and Princeton professor, compared Homer’s Iliad, the Mahabharata of Hinduism, and the New Testament. He observed that the Mahabharata was 90% accurate from the original (10% textual corruption), Homer’s Iliad was 95% accurate from the original (5% textual corruption), and the New Testament was 99.5% accurate from the original (.5% textual corruption). He also mentioned that the general concern for textual criticism is only a thousandth part of the text, which would make the New Testament 99.9% pure! As a result, it is the best known of any ancient book in the world. Significant portions of other books from antiquity are missing. For example, 107 of Livy’s 142 books of Roman history have been lost. Of Tacitus’ original Histories and Annals, only half remain. All New Testament books are preserved and there is no significant portion missing. Sir Frederick Kenyon noted:
"The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or the other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."
The Early Church Fathers cited the four gospels alone 19,368 times in the late first century. Justin Martyr is accredited with 268 citations; Iraneus with 1038; Clement of Alexandria with 1017, Origen with 9231, Turtullian with 3822, Hypollytus with 734, and Eusebius with 3258. Even before these men there were citations: Pseudo-Barnabas references the gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Clement of Rome cites the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of John, and 1 Corinthians; Ignatius cites six of Paul’s epistles; Polycarp cites all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s epistles; Shepard of Hermas cites the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians, among other books; the Didache cites the Gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Luke, 1 Corinthians; Papias, a companion of Polycarp (a disciple of John), quoted John’s gospel. All of these citations argue powerfully that this places the gospels in existence before they were cited well before the end of the first century while some eyewitnesses (like John) were still alive. Some Fathers overlap with their citations of the gospel of John (the latest New Testament book, written around 95 a.d.), which eliminates any time gap between the New Testament and the earliest citations of it.
The historicity of the book of Acts:
If Acts was written before 70 a.d. while the eyewitnesses ere still alive, then it has great historical value in informing us of the earliest Christian beliefs. What is more, if Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it is place in the apostolic circle of the earliest disciples of Jesus. If Acts was written by 62 a.d., then it was written by a contemporary of Jesus (who died in 33 a.d.). And if Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs in the miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Further, if Luke wrote Acts, then his “former treatise”, the gospel of Luke, should be extended the same credibility manifested in the book of Acts. Roman historian Colin Hemer cites numerous reasons for accepting a traditional early date of Acts. These reasons strongly support the historicity of Acts and the historicity of the gospel of Luke. The following is the first five of numerous reasons:
1)There is no mention in Acts of the crucial historical event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., which places Acts before that event.
2)There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of any serious specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies Acts was written before that time.
3)There is no hint of the more immediate deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4)There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62 a.d., recorded by Josephus in his Antiquities.
5)Since the apostle Paul was still alive (Acts 28), it must have been written before his death (65 a.d.).
Six more reasons for an early date of Acts are cited as follows:
1)Primitive formulation of Christian terminology is used in Acts, which reflects an earlier period.
2)Rackham points to the optimistic tone of Acts, which would not have been there after Judaism had been destroyed and Christians martyred in the Neronian persecutions of the late 60s.
3)The abrupt ending of the book of Acts is a factor. Surely, if Paul had died by then, for example, that would have been mentioned.
4)The “immediacy” of Acts 27-28 comes into play.
5)The prevalence of insignificant details of a cultural milieu of an early, even Julio-Claudian, date shows evidence.
6)There are areas of controversy within Acts that presuppose the relevance of an early Jewish setting while the Temple was still standing.
By comparison, claiming that Acts was written after 62 a.d. is like claiming that a book on the life of JFK was written after 1963 (when he was assassinated) but never mentions his death; if the event had already occurred, it was too important to omit. In the same way, any book like Acts that was written after the death of the apostle Paul (65 ad) or the destruction of Jerusalem (70 ad) would surely have mentioned these momentous events.
Evidence that the author of Acts was a first-rate Historian:
In addition to the arguments for an early date of Acts, Hemer demonstrates that the author was an historian of note:
1)Items of geographical detail and the like, which may be assumed to have been generally known
2)More specialized details, which may still have been widely know to those who possessed relevant experience: titles of governors, army units, major routes etc, which may have been accessible to those who traveled or were involved in administration, but perhaps not to those without such backgrounds
3)Specifics of local routes, boundaries, titles of city magistrates, and the like, which may not be closely controllable in date, but are unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had visited the districts.
4)The correlation of the dates of known kings and governors with the ostensible chronology of the Acts framework
5)Details appropriate to the date of Paul but not appropriate to the conditions of a date earlier or especially later
6)Undersigned coincidences between Acts and the accepted Pauline Epistles
7)Latent internal correlation within Acts
8)Independently attested details that agree with the Alexandrian against the Western text (or the reverse and may thus relate to the stages in the textual tradition of Acts
9)Matters of common geographical knowledge or the like, mentioned perhaps informally or allusively, with an unstudied accuracy that bespeaks familiarity
10)Differences in formulation within Acts as a possible indication of different categories of sources
11)Peculiarities in the selection of detail, such as the inclusions of details theologically unimportant, but explicable in other ways that may ear on the historical question
12)As a particular case of the preceding details whose immediacy suggests the authors reproduction of recent experience and which are less readily explicable as the product of longer-term reflective editing and shaping
13)Items reflecting culture or idiom that are suggestive of a first-rather than a second-century atmosphere
14)Interrelated complexes in which two or more kinds of correlation are combined or where related details each show separate correlations, so that the possibility arises of building a larger fragment of historical reconstruction from a jigsaw of interlocking units
15)Cases where the progress of discovery and knowledge simply provide new background information of use to the commentator of whatever viewpoint, while not bearing significantly on the issue of historicity
16)Precise details that lie within the range of contemporary possibilities, but whose particular accuracy have no means of verifying one way or the other
In addition to the above points, the author of Acts demonstrates detailed knowledge of the historical names, places, persona and events of the times. In addition, Luke manifests an incredible array of knowledge of local places, names, conditions, customs, and circumstances that befit only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events.
The historicity of the Gospels:
Since Matthew and Mark provide the same basic data on the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ, what argues for the authenticity of one also argues for the authenticity of the other. We will argue for the historicity of the gospel of Luke. The author of the gospel of Luke is known to be an accurate historian. Dr. Luke, the travel companion of the apostle Paul, is widely believed to be the author of the gospel of Luke for many good reasons. First, the author of Acts:
1)was highly educated, judging by the good Greek he used
2)was not one of the twelve apostles
3)Was a participant in many events himself
4)Was knowledgeable about the apostle Paul
5)Knew and quoted the Old testament in Greek
6)Had a good knowledge of the political and social situation in the first century
7)Was a traveler with the apostle Paul at times, as indicated by the “we” sections
8)Was not Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tycicus, or Trophimus, who are excluded by Acts 20:4
9)Had knowledge of medicine, as indicated by his use of medical terms and references. The only companion of Paul known to fit all these characteristics was “Luke the beloved physician” (Co. 4:14)
However, it is not a question of who wrote the book that is important, but whether or not he was a reliable source. R.T. France noted, “Authorship is not a major factor in our assessment of the reliability of the Gospels”.
Second, the same person who wrote Acts also wrote the gospel of Luke, since:
1)both are written to “Theophilus” (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)
2)both are written in excellent Greek
3)both show medical interest,
4)Acts refers to a “former account” the author had written about Jesus (Acts 1:1)
5)There is an unbroken and virtually unchallenged tradition from the era of the early Christian church till modern times attributing it to Dr. Luke.
Third, the author of Acts is known to be a top-notch historian, a fact established by both Sir William Ramsey and more recently by Colin Hemer. Another noted Roman historian strongly supports the historicity of the Gospels, saying:
“So it is astonishing that while Greco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, have taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism…that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious.”
Thus, the belief that the idea that these accounts are legendary is simply “unbelievable”. From all of this information, we can conclude that the gospel of Luke is also an excellent historical work written around ad 60. Since Matthew, Mark and John present the same basic picture of Christ, they too are historically reliable. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Luke states his historical interest in his prologue (Luke 1:1-4) claiming that:
1)he is aware of other earlier written accounts of Christ’s life
2)the gospel of Luke is labeled on “eyewitness” testimony
3)he had “carefully investigated everything from the beginning”
Furthermore, Luke proves his historical interest by correlating his narration of the life of Christ with secular history and exact dates. He not only tells when Jesus was born (when “Caesar Augustus” was king, Luke 2:1) but also the exact year when Jesus began his ministry, namely, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Casear - when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Taconitisi, a Lysanais tetrarch of Abilene – during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert” (Luke 3:1-2). All of these check out with secular history of the time. Also, Colin Hemer has provided strong arguments for Acts being written by a.d. 62., and since Luke was written before Acts, it follows that the gospel of Luke comes from around a.d. 60. But this is only twenty-seven years after Christ died and rose from the dead, which means that many of the generation of the eyewitnesses of Christ of which Luke speaks (Luke 1:2) were still alive when he wrote his gospel, a strong indication of its historical reliability (because eyewitnesses could refute the claims of the gospel)
William F. Albright, with a lifetime of research under his belt, wrote:
“In short, thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between a.d. 25 and a.d. 80.”
Albright also affirmed:
“I should answer that, in my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century a.d. (very probably sometime between about ad 50 and 75).”
Albright even went so far as to say:
“The evidence from the Qumran community shows that the concepts, terminology, and mindset of the gospel of John is probably early first-century.”
Albright also believed:
“Biblical and historical data are accurate to an extent far surpassing the ideas of any modern critical students, who have consistently tended to err on the side of hypercriticisms.”
Since Jesus died in a.d. 33, placing some books in the 50s and 60s would mean that it was written within twenty to thirty years of the events, while most eyewitnesses were still alive! That there are multiple records involved (eight or nine authors and twenty seven books) provides a strong basis for the historicity of their writings.
The gospels are too early to be mythological:
Julius Muller challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example where in one generation a myth developed where the most prominent elements are the myths. None has ever met the challenge because none exist. Sherwin White observed:
“Herodotus enables us to test the temp of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.”
Archaeological confirmation of the gospels:
The mention of Pharisees, Sadducees, Jewish traditions, customs, and even the use of Aramaic words, along with the cities and topography of the land, are all very familiar to the documentation of first-century Judaism as recorded by Flavius Josephus and others. Also, the New Testament mentions historical figures like Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Casear, Quirinius, govern of Syria, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, Annas and Caiaphas, the high priests; John the Baptist, and others. All of these are known to have existed and operated in the time and place to which the New Testament locates them. Also, there are references in the gospels that are supported by specific archaeological discoveries, such as the Siloam pool, , the pool of Bethesda, the synagogue in Capernaum , the foundation of Herod’s temple, Pilate’s pratorium, the vicinity of Golgotha, and the Garden Tomb. Likewise, the “Titulus Venetus” helps to illuminate Augustus’s census (in Luke 2:1). A Latin Plaque mentions “Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea.” Even the bones of a first-century crucifixion victim, Yohana, support the gruesome presentation of Christ’s death. And the Nazareth Decree (found in 1878), perhaps circulated between a.d. 41 and 54, is curious in view of the Jewish claim that Jesus’ body have been stolen rather than resurrected. Since all previous Roman indictments of this nature involved only a fine, why should such a strong penalty be leveled in Palestine just after Jesus died, was reported to have risen from the tomb, and while His disciples were stirring up dissent in Palestine? Like the rest of Scripture, the life of Christ portrayed in the Gospels fits perfectly into the known fact unearthed by the archaeology of this period; nothing has ever been found to contradiction it, and numerous find have supported it.
Confirmation of the New Testament from the Basic Facts Position:
Professor Gary Habermas argues from what can be called the “basic facts position.” Beginning with the truths that almost all critical scholars of the New Testament agree upon, he maintains that the best explanation is that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead—all of which is at the heart of the historicity of the New Testament. He lists “at least twelve separate facts that are agreed to be knowable history” by “practically all critical scholars”. These include:
1)Jesus died by crucifixion
2)Jesus was buried
3)his disciples despaired
4)the tomb was later found empty
5)the disciples believed they later saw literal appearances of Jesus
6)they were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers after his resurrection
7)this message was the center of their early preaching
8)they preached this in Jerusalem shortly after it happened
9)the church was born and grew rapidly
10)Sunday was their primary day of worship
11)James was converted from skepticism to belief in the resurrection of Jesus
12)A few years later Paul was converted, proclaiming that he had seen the resurrected Christ.
On the basis of the basic facts position, it can be argued that no purely naturalistic theory explains all these facts and that the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts. Further, taking even four of these facts that are accepted by virtually all critical scholars (1, 5, 6, and 12) the case can still be made that the literal resurrection is the best explanation for these four facts. Habermas concludes:
“These core facts also provide the major positive evidence for Jesus literal resurrection appearances…thus these core historical facts provide positive evidence which further verify the disciples claims concerning Jesus’ literal resurrection, especially in that these arguments have not been accounted for naturalistically.”
The top reasons we know the gospels writers told the truth:
1)The gospel writers made no attempt to harmonize their accounts:
Eyewitnesses offering truthful accounts rarely tell the same story word-for-word. Overlaps in testimony on crucial points are expected but exactness in details is rare. This is exactly what we have in the gospels, there is unanimity on the centrals facts about the life death and resurrection of Christ, along with significant but reconcilable differences in the details. Sometimes, there is even an apparent contradiction from one account to another. Surely no writers in collusion would have allowed all apparent contradictions in the record. While it has never been demonstrated that these are real contradictions (divergent details are not contradictory details, this much is certain: the writers were not conspiring together to tell story that was not true.
2)The gospel writers included passages that place Jesus in a bad light:
Among these are the facts that Jesus was called a “drunkard” (Matt. 11:10), a madman (John 10:20), demon-possessed (John 8:48), and that his brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5). Surely no one trying to paint a perfect picture tell a myth would have allowed this in their record of their great hero, to say nothing of the one who they believed to be the Son of God.
3)The gospel writers left difficult passages in their text:
If Jesus is really God, then why did they believe in Jesus’ statement “the father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and “no one knows the time, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son” (Matt. 24:36)? Also, why did he rebuke the rich young ruler when he called Jesus “good master” and insist that only God was good (from whom he appeared to be disassociating himself)?
4)The gospel writers record self-incriminating stories:
Granted that one of the apostles wrote a gospel, or had strong influence on someone who wrote a gospel, why would they leave in self-incriminating things on the record such as: all the disciples falling asleep when Jesus asked them to pray (Mark 14:32-41); Peter being called “Satan” by Jesus (Matt. 16:23); Peter denying the Lord three times (Luke 22:34); the disciples fleeing when things got really tough (at the crucifixion, Mark 14:50); Peter cutting of the ear of the servant of the high priest (Mrk 14:47), or, in spite of repeated teaching that he would rise from the dead, the disciples being doubtful and disbelieving when they heard of Jesus resurrection?
5)The gospel writers carefully distinguish Jesus words from their own:
Any literate young adult could take a black and white version of the gospels and accurately add quotations marks around the words of Jesus, so carefully are they distinguished from the writers own words. The fact that all red-letter editions of the bible are virtually identical illustrates how clear this distinction is. But why should the gospel writers be so careful to distinguish Jesus’ words from theirs if they were simply putting words in Jesus’ mouth? This distinction demonstrates that, contrary to form and redaction criticism, they were really reporting, not creating, the words of Jesus.
6) The gospel writers claim they based their record on eyewitness testimony:
If what the gospel writers said was fraud, pious or not, someone would have cracked under this pressure and confessed that what they said was not true. But no one did. This is itself is as strong testimony to the truth of the gospel records. First, there is the clear claim of the gospel of Luke to be historical, Luke 1:1-4 says, “many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also for me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” Furthermore, this is not a mere claim, since the author of the gospel of Luke has shown himself to be an excellent historian. Second, the author of John claims he was witness to the events recorded there, saying, “this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know his testimony is true” (John 21:24). Third, the author of 2 Peter claimed to be an eyewitness of Christ, saying “we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16). Fourth, the entire New Testament record contains many indications of an eyewitness account, having a lively immediacy that bespeaks an eyewitness retelling, reflecting knowledge of first-century places, persons, customs, topography and geography. There are references to verifiable cities like Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and many other cities of first century Palestine, along with religious knowledge about Pharisees and Sadducees.
7)Non-Christian sources confirm the gospel record:
In addition to the biblical data, there are non-Christian sources for the life of Christ, including Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus, the Jewish Talmud, and Josephus.
8)The gospel writers did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death:
One sure-fire way to determine whether a person is telling the truth is to persecute or threaten to kill them unless he changes his view. It is well known that the early Christians, among them were the gospel writers, were put in this situation repeatedly; Acts 4, 5, 7 and 8 are notable examples of this in the early church. Paul tells of his incredible woes for Christ, “Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger for my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea, and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have hunger and thirst and have often gone without food, I have been cold and naked. And besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:24-28). It is a psychological fact that few, if any, would endure these experiences for what they knew to be a lie.
Objections to the historicity of the New Testament:
1)Are miraculous accounts unreliable?
No one has ever offered a definitive argument showing that miracles are impossible. Every attempt simply begs the question by defining miracles as impossible. If a theistic God exists, then miracles are possible. It follows then that the only way to disprove the possibility of miracles is to disprove the existence of God and, despite all the attempts, no one has been able to provide an absolute (or even convincing) disproof. Furthurmore, there is an inconsistency in the critics arguments. Ancient historians accept the reliability of other ancient accounts of events that contain miracle claims in them. As Gary Habermas notes, “Ancient histories regularly recounted supernatural reports of all sorts, including omens and portens, prophecies, healing miracles, various sorts of divine intervention, as well as demonic activity.” Inclusion of alleged miracles is also part of the reports of Tacitus and Suetonius, whose accounts are widely accepted by modern historians as well as containing reliable historical accounts.
2)Do unusual claims demand unusual evidence?
First, the word “unusual” is ambiguous. Does it mean supernatural? If so, then it begs the question, for it amounts to saying, “a miraculous claim demands miraculous evidence.” But if one provided miraculous evidence for that, the objector would ask miraculous evidence for that, and so on to infinity. In this case, one could never verify anything by a miraculous claim.
Second, if “unusual” simply means merely more than normal, then the New Testament meets the challenge, since there are more manuscripts, earlier ones, more accurately copied ones, with more witnesses, and more corroborated by external evidence for the New Testament than any other book from antiquity.
Third, the word “unusual” is imprecise. How unusual does the evidence have to be? Who determines its meaning? What are the objective criteria for unusualness? Are these applied consistently with other unusual claims in history and other disciplines?
Fourth, many views in modern science that are very unusual have been accepted. The Big Bang theory is a case in point: by the standards operating in modern science, the explosions of the universe out of nothing was a highly unusual event. Yet only normal scientific evidence has been required to believe it, such as the second law of thermodynamics, and an expanding universe, etc.
Fifth, many purely natural events are highly unusual; for example, virtually everything in nature contracts as it gets colder, yet when water reaches 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it expands. Scientists do not require high unusual evidence that this is so--only the regular observation demanded to establish other natural events.
In short, the claim that “unusual events demand unusual evidence” is an unusual claim that needs unusual evidence as to why it should be accepted. Thus, it fails to undermine the historicity of the New Testament, there is more than ample evidence for the miraculous claims it contains.
3) Long discourses could not have been remembered years later
There are many long discourse of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, including the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the denunciation of the Jewish leaders, the Mount Olivet Discourse, the Upper Room Discourse, and the high-priestly prayer. It is alleged to be very unlikely that these could have been remembered word for word a generation or more later, when they were recorded. In response, the critics overlook some important facts: First, their dates for the gospels are too late. Evidence places the writings closer to the events than previously thought, even within ten years, according to some (like liberal critic John A.T. Robinson). Second, memories were more highly developed in this pre-literary culture, making it feasible that all of this was memorized. Third, even today many persons have memorized much more than this, even whole gospels. Fourth, Matthew, who has most of the long discourses, was a record keeper by vocation. He may have kept records of Jesus actual words that were then available for others, just as the early Christian writer Papias said he did.
Fifth, even if these long discourses were summaries and paraphrases of Jesus’ exact words, there is no evidence to indicate they they are not accurate. In fact, as we have seen above, all the evidence is to the contary. Sixth, Jesus’ promised a supernatural activation of the disciple’s memories, saying, “But the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).
CONCLUSION
The historicity of the New Testament is based on more solid evidence than that for any other event of its era, for no other event is based on more manuscripts that are more accurately copied or that were written by more people who were eyewitnesses of the events and who wrote down the material within the lifetimes f its contemporaries. Were it not for an ungrounded supernatural bias of the negative critics, the gospel accounts would be unquestioned as to their historicity – which indeed they were among bible scholars some 1800 years after the events.
Also, you must explain why a religion which is untrue grew into the most popular religion the world has ever seen. You must also explain why people have angelic experiences (and other miraculous occurances). Why is it that muslims and other non-christians have christian NDE's in which they are condemned to hell by Jesus Christ Himself? Why do non-christians have dreams/visions of Christ leading them to faith in Him? Why is it that the teachings of a first century peasant from Galilee grew into what they are today (in spite of opposition from Jewish authorities and the Roman Empire)? Coincidence? Not likely, due to all of the evidence we have in support of Jesus' historical existence.
