Reviews by Hubie Goode: Historicity of the New Testament Part 3

Historicity of 

the New Testament

Part 3

Authenticity of the events of the New Testament have been verified by the close examination of the internal consistencies of the writings and also by external investigations into the history and archaeology of the time. The books often make claims concerning their own authorship and it is a bit presumptuous of critics to deny these claims due solely to their own position against the supernatural. Paul, for instance, always begins his letters with his own name, and each epistle contains many incidental allusions which support this claim. William Pauley’s : Horae Paulinea, is an example of a classic book that has taken great pains to correlate the many incidental occurrences which prove Paul to be the author of his own writings. 

Likewise such studies on the writings of Peter and John and others, also prove those authors to be the actual writers. Epistle events often tie in with earlier historical records of the lives of these men as recorded in the Gospels and Acts. Peter’s experience at the Mount of Transfiguration and Paul’s stoning at Lystra, are two excellent examples of this sort of connection among Biblical books. Linguistic evidence also matches author with writing, as is evident in the writings of John. The Gospel of John, the epistles and Revelation all have the same striking vocabulary use which points to John as author.

Archaeological evidence also plays a huge part in solidifying the confirmation of New testament authorship. The book of Acts is a big influence on this avenue of discovery as it deals with the spread of the Gospel in the first 30 years after the Resurrection of Christ. It mentions places, customs, events and times of the Roman, Greek and Jewish worlds of the day. If the book were a compilation of uncertain traditions brought together long after the actual events, or even if, let’s say, Luke was a sloppy writer, there would be an abundance of factual mistakes in the book. 

The opposite is so incredibly true that archeologists have found themselves amazed as to Luke’s specificity in his writings. Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsey, who has done extensive research into the historic plausibility of the Gospels has been quoted as saying: “Luke is an historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense... In short, this author should be placed among the very greatest of historians.”

1 William Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953) p. 80

Not to be missed is the fact that this same author, Luke, is also the major contributor of the fullest account of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.

The other books of the New Testament do not lend themselves as readily to archaeological investigations as does the book of Acts, however, descriptions of Jerusalem, Judea and Sumeria, and also references to customs and political situations, are frequently confirmed by scientific and historical research. There is in fact, NO statement in the New Testament that has been unequivocally refuted by the studies of history or science, even after all this time. This fact in and of itself, is darn near amazing.

So what does all this imply? What does it all mean for you and me? More on this next time in part 4.