The Historicity of the New Testament

Is the New Testament history? Yes! The Gospel story could never even have gotten off the ground if the historical record contained in it was known to be untrue by the dwellers in Jerusalem at the time.

The old city of Jerusalem occupied an area of only 0.9 square kilometres, and the permanent population at the time of Christ was approximately 88,000. With so many people living in such close proximity to each other within the walled city, practically everyone could have known everything that happened anywhere in the city.

By comparison, the suburb of Miami, in the city of the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia occupies 3.0 square kilometres, and has a population of approximately 6,167. So imagine 88,000 people living in an area only 30% the size of the suburb of Miami. The equivalent population density would hypothetically be as if 293,333 people were living in Miami!

If someone published a book about then-current events in the city, nearly everybody would immediately have known whether the book was fiction or non-fiction. The likelihood of this is heightened even more if the alleged events are of the nature and magnitude described in the four Gospels.

And as if that isn't enough, the same information was published not only by one author but by a total of four independant authors at the same time.

And besides them there were also a number of other independant authors who recorded and confirmed many of the same events - writers such as the historian Josephus.

Consequently no-one at the time in Jerusalem disputed the historical record contained in the four Gospels. Everyone living in Jerusalem knew the historical record was accurate.

Not everyone concluded that Jesus was the Son of God as He claimed - no-one, however, denied the factuality of the historical events themselves as they are recorded in the four Gospels.

Everyone at the time knew there had been a man named Jesus - that He indeed had done the miracles described - and that hundreds of eyewitnesses were claiming to have seen Him after His resurrection. No-one disputed that. The only dispute was over whether He really was the Son of God as He claimed.

No-one disputed the historical record - and multiplie thousands were even willing to accept the implications of the historical record. Many of those who had previously condemned Jesus to death deduced that Jesus must be the Son of God as He claimed, at great risk to themselves and their properties. They believed and were willing to stake their very lives on it - even in defiance of the Jewish and Roman decrees.

Many sold what they owned and laid the money at the apostles' feet. Many preferred to be forced to flee from the city for their very lives rather than deny their newfound faith. Many were even subsequently imprisoned or killed - a fate which they chose rather than deny what they knew to be truth, as recorded in the four Gospels.

Interestingly none of their persecutors disputed the historical record - their only dispute with them was over whether Jesus had the right according to their law to call Himself the Son of God.

If the information in the four Gospels was widely known to be fiction, it would be impossible that so many other independant writers could have concocted such identical stories.

It would be impossible that the whole city of Jerusalem accepted the record as historical fact.

And it would be even more impossible that the whole multitude of many thousands of believers would have been willing to sell their goods or have them confiscated and then be persecuted and scattered from their own city and be imprisoned and killed, all over something which was widely known to be mere fiction.

The historical record contained in the four Gospels was beyond dispute. The New Testament meets all the criteria of textual criticism. The only dispute was over whether Jesus truly was the Son of God as He claimed.

The historical record as it stands still requires that every individual make a decision about Christ's claim to be the Son of God. Whoever believed and received Him was given the power to be called the sons of God!

Furthermore, the New Testament record hasn't changed since it was first written.

The onus of proof is with those who assert that the presentday New Testament is not identical to the original record as it existed in the first century.

If the document has been changed as some claim, then they ought to be able to provide evidence of the original document; they ought to be able to track the changes that were made down through the centuries, demonstrating the process of evolution until the present document finally emerged.

But to the contrary, the literary evidence shows that from earliest manuscripts until today, the text has remained exactly the same.

Independant historians aside from the Bible also documented the beliefs, events and practices of early Christianity - and their written records confirm the record of the presentday Gospels. Evidently therefore there haven't been any changes.

The New Testament Gospels satisfy all of the criteria of textual criticism. The record of the four Gospels is therefore deemed to be reliable. The evidence is that the four Gospels were originally written exactly as they appear today, and that no changes have been made.

If anyone denies the validity of the New Testament record, he should also deny many other generally-accepted historical records, if he applies the same reasoning (that is, if he is using any reasoning at all).

In addition to the literary evidence for the New Testament, the power of the Holy Spirit gives continuing evidence to the truth about the Son of God. And many believers can testify to the power of God in their lives.

"Blessed is he that believeth".

"Now abideth faith, hope and love..."