Basic Christian Apologetics

Reliability of the New Testament

Early Christian literature contains proof that the New Testament is trustworthy and regarded as authoritative. I will present various internal and external sources of evidence to demonstrate the reliability of the gospels.

Internal evidence:

Some historians claim that the Gospel of Mark was the first documented account of Jesus' life. Since it is the shortest, Matthew and Luke might have drawn their inspiration from Mark. John arrived later from an independent source.

Oral narrative parallels that we found doesnt necessarily mean the shorter version is older. It may be the result of practical constraits.~ Specialist Albert Lord

Some claim that because the gentile audience did not comprehend the Jewish context of the fulfilled prophecies, the gospel of Matthew could have been written first —was condensed for their benefit.

There are a lot of non-theological languages that would only be significant if they were written with that audience in mind. Since papyrus was expensive and the size of Mark's gospel would require at least two denarii to purchase, it would have been simpler for later forgers to obliterate these parts. It would have taken a lot of time, effort, and extra money to hire a scribe(if one didn't know how to write). However, the copyist made sure to preserve these portions even though they could have no importance to the later generation. They could have been replaced by problems that the early Christians had, such as circumcision (Acts 15), by inventing verses that claimed to be from Jesus.

The book of Hebrews could have been named after notable disciples, just as the gospels could have been titled after famous disciples like Thomas, Philip, and Andrew instead they were titled after those who had never encountered Jesus during His ministry.

The first to have witnessed the empty tomb were women.

"As a historian we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been madeup 5 years later, let alone 30,40 or 50 years later they would have never had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the pointof view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up." ~ NT Wright, There is a God Pg 207

External evidence:

The gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew.

The gospel of Mark was written by Mark, the interpreter of Peter.

The gospel of Luke- Luke, companion of Paul.

The gospel of John- John

Writing in North Africa (200 AD)- the documents of the gospel were written by the Apostles Matthew and John and the apostolic men Luke and Mark." ~ Tertullian

Clement of Alexandria- Writing in Alexandria (180 AD):

♣The gospel with genealogies came first

♣Mark was written by request of Peter's preaching in Rome.

John came last by the urging of friends- Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonical on 1 Peter 5:13

This, too the elder used to say: Mark who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully but not heard the Lord or been one of his followers but later as I said one of Peter's. Peter used to adapt hi teaching to the occasion without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's saying's, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only to leave out nothing that he had heard and to make no mistatement about it." ~ Papias writing in Hierapolis (125 AD), Ecclesiatical history 3. 39.15-16