In what ways does the study of history help with understanding the Bible? Can it be a help for us?

Helpful In Many Ways

There are at least five ways in which the study of the background of the Bible can help.

1. Many Specific Historical References

First, the entire biblical revelation centers on what God has done in history. For example, one chapter in Scripture, Genesis 10, has five times more specific geographical references of importance than the entire Koran, the holy book of Islam! In addition, there are over 300 references in the Book of Acts alone to names, places, and events. With so much attention to detail, the historical reliability of the Scriptures is of vital importance. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it must be able to withstand the most thorough historical investigation.

2.See If The Bible Is Factual

The study of history, and its related fields, give us a means to check up and see if the Bible is factual. The Biblical faith is not a blind faith—it claims to record the works of God in history. Since the Bible itself makes the claim to record events that have happened in history, we should see how it matches up with the secular evidence. This can be done by comparing what the Scripture says to the known facts of history.

3.Place The Events In Sharper Focus

Looking at the subject of Biblical history can place the events in the Bible in sharper focus. By understanding the background we can better assess the Biblical story and its meaning.

4.Solves Problems

Studying the biblical background can help solve problems that occur in Scripture. An understanding of the customs, language, geography, and politics of the day can help understand certain difficult sayings and events.

5.Fill In The Gaps

Gaps in the biblical records can be filled in by a study of the background history. Since the Scriptures are selective in what they record, a study of the background can help fill in the gaps.

Summary

The study of the historical background of the Scripture is essential in confirming the truth of the Biblical record, along with clearing up certain difficulties that arise in the text. Background studies also help with our interpretation of Scripture—giving us a better understanding of times and customs when these events transpired. For these reasons, the study of the background of Scripture is essential for our learning more about the Bible.

As we begin to explore the subject of the historical accuracy of Scripture we will discover it is of vital importance. The Christian faith is an historical faith—it records what God has done in history. This being the case, the historical accuracy of recorded events is of utmost importance. This is true for both the Old and New Testament.

Old Testament

The Old Testament is a testimony of the mighty works of God. The Lord reminded Israel of His mighty power. The historical accuracy of the Bible is of the utmost importance because the revelation of God to mankind was accomplished through His mighty words and deeds in history.

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (Exodus 20:2).

But the Lord, who brought you up from the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm . . . Him you shall worship (2 Kings 17:36).

O My people, remember now . . . that you may know the righteousness of the Lord (Micah 6:5).

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

Christianity's truth claim consists merely of a finger pointing back through time to an historical figure who divided world history into two parts—to Jesus of Nazareth—to His statements concerning Himself and true religion, and to the life He led attesting to the statements He made. An honest, historically accurate, scientific investigation of these data (involving chiefly a study of the documents collected in the New Testament) will show that Jesus claimed to be God Incarnate, that He described the only true (but not the only possible) religion consisting of fellowship with Himself, and that He attested His claims by a sinless life which profoundly affected everyone who crossed His path, and by a resurrection which left no doubt in the minds of eyewitnesses that He was in fact the true God (John Warwick Montgomery, The Shape of The Past: An Introduction to Philosophical Historiography, vol. 1, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1962, p. 328).

Because Judaism-Christianity has so thoroughly influenced Western culture, we are prone to imagine that all other world religions have a similarly solid historical base. This is by no means the case. It can, in fact, be argued that every religious system before or since Judaism and Christianity has avoided any serious interaction with history, and instead has asked it followers to believe by sheer faith alone, the claimed revelation of its founder(s). This is true of the mythologies of yesterday and the cults of today, the religions of the East or the New Age of the West.
Or, whatever links with genuine history are claimed—as in several modern beliefs systems today—these are never verified by secular history or findings by archaeology. Typically, a single founder claims divine revelation, which is subsequently written down as a holy book for his or her following. The founder may well be historical, of course, but one looks in vain for true correlations with secular history in the founder's holy book. Rather than any private, once-for-all-revelation, Judeo-Christianity's Scriptures encompass a two thousand year plus period—two millenia in which its holy books constantly interlaced themselves with history (Paul Maier, In the Fulness of Time, p. xv.)

There is a type of Christian faith, . . . rather strongly represented today, [that] regards the affirmation of Christian faith as confessional statements which the individual accepts as a member of the believing community, and which are not dependent on reason or evidence. Those who hold this position will not admit that historical investigation can have anything to say about the uniqueness of Christ. They are often skeptical as to the possibility of knowing anything about the historical Jesus . . . I cannot share this point of view. I am profoundly convinced that the historic revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth must be the cornerstone of any faith that is really Christian. Any historical question about the real Jesus who lived in Palestine nineteen centuries ago is therefore fundamentally important (Millar Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Viking Press, 1958, p. 55).

The Old Testament records events that span thousands of years. Biblical scholar John Bright correctly points out the Bible's own high view of history:

The genius of the Old Testament faith does not lie in its idea of God or in the elevation of its ethical teachings. Rather it lies in its understanding of history, specifically of Israel's history, as the theatre of God's purposive activity. A concern with the meaning of history, and of specific events within history, is one of its most characteristic features. It records a real history, and it interprets every detail of that history in the light of Yahweh's sovereign purpose and righteous will. It relates past events—the stories of the Patriarches, the Exodus, the giving of the Promised Land—in terms of his gracious dealings with his people, his promise to them and fulfillment. It continually sets forth the response that Yahweh requires of his people, and interprets their fortunes in the midst of events, in terms of their obedience or disobedience to his demands. And it announces that Yahweh will yet do, in the judgment of Exile and beyond, for the accomplishment of his purpose. The Old Testament consistently views Israel's history as one that is guided as a destination by the word and will of her God (John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament. London: SCM Press, 1967, p. 130).

Archeology must not be regarded as the sole determining consideration in matters of historical criticism, since it, too, is beset with its own kind of problems. These include poor excavating techniques in earlier days, the varied interpretation of specific artifacts, and the difficulty of establishing an assured chronological framework into which events can be placed with confidence. Archaeology is in no sense an adequate 'control' mechanism by which OT sequences stand or fall.
Nevertheless, archaeological discoveries have assisted enormously in demonstrating the historicity of certain OT events and personages, and in other areas have furnished an authentic social and cultural background against which many OT narratives can be set with assurance. Numerous cuneiform texts that have been unearthed show how the Mesopotamian writers of early historiographic material expressed themselves in terms of a world view, as is the case of the first few chapters of Genesis, thereby indicating that the latter should not be taken as myth, but as Mesopotamian historiography (R. K. Harrison, Bruce Waltke, Donald Guthrie, and Gordon Fee, Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary and Textual. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978, pp. 6, 7).

Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators, the time of which they treat is a sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing, a time separated by an interval of more than four hundred years, of which there is absolutely no history, from the nearest period of which Israel has some dim historical recollection, a time when in civilized countries writing was only beginning to be used for the most important matters of State. Now wandering herdsmen have invariably an instinctive dislike to writing. In fact, at the present day, it is considered a disgrace among Bedouin tribes in the peninsula of Sinai to be able to write. It is therefore impossible that such men could hand down their family histories, in themselves quite unimportant, in any other way than orally, to wit, in legends. And even when writing had come into use, in the time that is, between Moses and David, it would still be sparingly used, and much that happened to the people must still have been handed down simply as legend (Herman Schultz, Old Testament Theology. H.A. Patterson, trans. Edinburgh: T cf. stone inscriptions of Ahiram). Thus, by the time of the entry of the Hebrews into Canaan in the Late Bronze Age they would be confronted, if not already familiar with at least five different forms of writing systems used for eight or more languages (D.J. Wiseman and Edwin Yamauchi, Archaeology and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 25).

The excavations at Ugarit have revealed a high material culture in Canaan prior to the emergence of the Hebrews. Prose and poetry were already fully developed. The educational system was so advanced that dictionaries in four languages were compiled for the use of scribes, and the individual words were listed in their Ugaritic, Babylonian, Sumerian, and Hurrian equivalents. The beginnings of Israel are rooted in a highly cultural Canaan where the contributions of several talented peoples . . . have converged and blended. The notion that early Israelite religion and society were primitive is completely false. Canaan in the days of the Patriarchs was a hub of great international culture (Cyrus Gordon, Higher Critics and Forbidden Fruit, Christianity Today, November 23, 1959).

One of the striking confirmations of Bible history to come from the science of archaeology is the 'recovery' of the Hittite peoples and their empires. Here is a people whose name appears again and again in the Old Testament, but who in secular history had been completely forgotten and whose very existence was considered to be extremely doubtful . . . But until the investigation of modern archaeologists, the Hittites remained a shadowy and undefined people (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1960, p. 75).

Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologists (Fred H. Wight, Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1955, pp. 94, 95).

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 17:17).

I am quite unable to get around the fact . . . that the Old Testament was authoritative Scripture for Jesus himself. Jesus knew no Scripture save the Old Testament, no God save its God; it was this God whom He addressed as Father . . . never once did He suggest that in the light of His work they might safely be discarded. On the contrary, He regarded the Scriptures as the key to the understanding of His person; again and again He is represented as saying that it is the Scriptures that witness to Him and are fulfilled in Him. At no place did He express Himself as shocked by the Old Testament . . . Although the Old Testament on occasion offends our Christians feelings, it did not apparently offend Christ's Christian feelings! Could it really be that we are ethically and religiously more sensitive than He? Or is it perhaps that we do not view the Old Testament—and its God—as He did? The very fact that the Old Testament was normative Scripture to Jesus, from which He understood both His God and . . . Himself, means that it must in some ways be normative Scripture for us too—unless we wish to understand Jesus in some other way than He Himself did and the New Testament did (John Bright, ibid. p. 77).

It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archeology that broke the deadlock between historians and the orthodox Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of archeologists . . . The over-all result is indisputable. Forgotten cities have been found, the handiwork of vanished peoples has reappeared, contemporary records of Biblical events have been unearthed and the uniqueness of biblical revelation has been emphasized by contrast and comparison to the newly understood religions of ancient peoples. Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history (John Elder, Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, Bobbs-Merrill, Co. p. 18).

The New Testament is primarily a record of the salvation work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Yet when the New Testament addresses historical issues, it too is accurate and reliable.

Investigate The Same Way As Other Documents

The New Testament was written in the same way as other documents in the ancient world. Consequently, it should be examined the same way as these other documents. Contrary to the claims of other religions and cults, there is no record of documents written on golden plates or discovered in some cave. Neither are the writings of the New Testament brought down from heaven by angels. They are the straightforward accounts of the people who walked and talked with Jesus and were observers of the things that He both said and did. The men who wrote these books made them public at the time they were written. There is no idea of hiding them so as to be discovered by some later generation. Every aspect of the composition of the New Testament is the same as other historical writings of that period. Therefore we need to investigate their claims as we would any other historical record.

Recent Changes

Some scholars, who were formerly skeptical of the New Testament record, are now more apt to take it seriously. Bible scholar Carsten Peter Thiede writes or these changes:

Stone after stone has been added to the mosaic which we are beginning to recognize as the world of Jesus and the first Christians. Classical scholars, historians, archaeologists, have ventured into the domain of theology and New Testament studies, and they have come up with new assessments of the data. Judged from their vantage point, those who argue for early dates of authentic Gospels as sources of information about an historical Jesus . . . are no longer the conservative or fundamentalist outsiders. We are witnessing a 'paradigm shift'. It may still be true that those who rubbish the New Testament in best selling books make the headlines, but behind the scenes, the stage is being reset. Sir Henry Chadwick, the Oxbridge church historian, symbolized this wen he wrote, in a review of the book The Jesus Papyrus which I wrote with Matthew d'Ancona in 1996, 'Thiede and d'Ancona are likely to be near the truth in wanting to re-date the first three Gospels about the middle decades of the first century' (Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Life or Legend, Second Edition, Oxford, England, Lion Publishing, 1997, p. 9).

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us (1 John 1:1,2).

The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of . . . first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and time again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.
And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others . . . who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1964, pp. 33, 44-46).

I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand) (Matthew 24:15).

And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16).

Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching (1 Timothy 4:13).

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near (Revelation 1:3).

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusions which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely, but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul The Traveler and Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1962, p. 36).

Ever since the . . . explorations and discoveries of William Ramsay earlier this century, the accuracy of Luke as a historian and reporter has been upheld by a multiplicity of details, particularly in the Book of Acts. He assigns the right titles to the proper officials at the correct periods of time in question. Such as the proconsul in Cyprus (Acts 13:7) and of Achaia (Acts 18:12), the Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19:31), among others . . . Luke was careful to entitle Herod Antipas the Tetrarch of Galilee, not loosely 'king' as many of his subjects flatteringly did (Kenneth Kitchen, The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today, Downers Grove IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977, pp. 132,133).

For Acts the confirmation of its historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted (A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford: At the Claredon Press, 1963, p. 189).

It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must apply to both (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984, p. 15).

Though the gospels were written a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Christ what about the letters of the Apostle Paul? When were they composed? How do they help with the reliability of the New Testament?

Possibly Earlier

Some of the letters of the Apostle Paul may actually have been written earlier than the gospels. For example, First Thessalonians was written approximately A.D. 51, while the first letter to the Corinthians was penned about A.D. 56. Obviously, all of his letters were written before A.D. 67, when he died.

Confirmed The Gospels

The testimony of the Apostle Paul confirms the evidence presented in the gospel accounts concerning Jesus Christ.  

A. Creator Of The Universe

John tells us that Jesus was the Creator of the universe.

All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3).

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16).

Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? (John 8:46).

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4).

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you; that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread (1 Corinthians 11:23).

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for ours sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3,4).

He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present (1 Corinthians 15:6).

The time of the composition of the New Testament text is extremely important, because if the documents were written and circulated at an early date, the eyewitnesses would still be living. They could either verify or deny the events recorded.

The evidence shows that the four Gospels were written in a relatively short time after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This can first be seen by examining the internal evidence of the New Testament itself.

City Of Jerusalem And Temple Still Standing

The first three Gospels, and possibly also the fourth, were apparently written while the city of Jerusalem was still standing. Each of the first three Gospels contain predictions by Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but none records the fulfillment. We know that the city and Temple were destroyed by Titus the Roman in A.D. 70. Hence, the composition of the first three Gospels must have occurred sometime before this event, otherwise their destruction would have been recorded.

The Book Of Acts

The Book of Acts also provides us with a clue as to when the gospels were written. Acts records the highlights in the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. The book concludes with Paul at Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. The inference is that Acts was written while Paul was still alive, seeing his death is not recorded. Since there is good evidence that Paul died in the Neronian persecution about A.D. 67, the Book of Acts can be dated approximately A.D. 62.

Luke

If Acts were written about A.D. 62, then this helps us date the gospels, since the Book of Acts is the second half of a treatise written by Luke to a man named Theophilus. Since we know that the gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts, we can then date the Gospel of Luke sometime around A.D. 60 or before.

The Brother Who Was Well-Known

There may be further evidence for an early date for Luke's gospel. Paul wrote of a brother who was well-known among the churches for the gospel.

And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the gospel has spread through all the churches (2 Corinthians 8:18).

Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name John (20:30:31).

This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. (John 21:24).

Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes (John 5:2).

The present tense should be used as indicating present time from the viewpoint of the speaker. The implication seems to be that this gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Although many may object to a pre-70 date for John's gospel, they must, in support of their view, reckon with this text (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, Zondervan, 1997, p. 531).

In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between A.D. 50 and 75) (Interview with Christianity Today, January 18, 1963).

Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 24 and cir. 80 A.D. (W.F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963, p. 29).

The earlier date, however, is argued with greater force, for the improbability that the Christians would be left for several years without a general and authentic history of our Savior's ministry (Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Kregel, 1995, p. 19).

This unbeliever, although he caused great annoyance to the believers in Christ living in his day, and seemed to be disturbing the foundations of the Christian faith, rendered more real service to Christianity than any father of undisputed orthodoxy in the Church. He admits all the grand facts and doctrines of the gospel, as they were preached by the Apostles, and contained in the acknowledged writings, for the sake of opposing. He makes in his attacks eighty quotations from the New Testament, and appeals to it as containing the sacred writings of Christians, universally received by them as credible and Divine.
He is, therefore, the very best witness we can summon to prove that the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after the Apostles were dust; but in less than a century and a half had been received by the Christian Church all over the world. He expressly quotes both the synoptic Gospels, as they were termed (the first three Gospels), and the Gospel of St. John (Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, pp. 91,92).

And regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).

For the Scripture says,  You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing, and The laborer is worthy of his wages (1 Timothy 5:18).

In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between A.D. 50 and 75) (Interview with Christianity Today, January 18, 1963).

Thanks to the Qumran discoveries, the New Testament proves to be what it was formerly believed to be: the teaching of Christ and his immediate followers between cir. 24 and cir. 80 A.D. (W.F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963, p. 29).

If we grant that the New Testament was composed at an early date what about the possibility that the writers had a faulty memory of what occurred?

Relied On Memory

Since the people in the first century were not as literate as modern man, they relied more upon memory than we do today. John Warwick Montgomery makes an appropriate comment:

We know from the Mishna that it was a Jewish custom to memorize a Rabbi's teaching, for a good pupil was like 'a plastered cistern that loses not a drop' [Mishna Aboth, II.8]. And we can be sure that the early Church, impressed as it was with Jesus, governed itself by this ideal (John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity, Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1964, pp. 37,38).

All were amazed and glorified God saying, 'We never saw anything like this!' (Mark 2:12).

For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner (Acts 26:26).

Higher criticism is the discipline concerned with the authorship of documents. While it is perfectly valid to study the authorship of biblical documents, higher criticism of the Bible has gone far beyond that. Most higher critics seem determined to establish that the Bible is of purely human origin. They deny the very idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

Not New

Such denial is not new, of course, for we see it way back in the Garden of Eden, when the serpent said to Eve,

Has God indeed said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Genesis 3:1).

About the middle of the nineteenth century there was a period when it was often maintained that writing was unknown in the time of Moses and the Judges and the earlier kings, and consequently that the narratives of these early periods could not be based upon authentic records. This disbelief in the antiquity of writing has been completely disproved by the discoveries of the last century. First of all, in 1852 and 1853 Henry Layard and his assistant Rassam discovered the libraries of the kings of Assyria at Nineveh, which contained hundreds of tablets of baked clay (the form of book used in Mesopotamia), including the chronicles of Sennacherib, Essarhaddon, and other rulers contemporary with the kings of Israel and Judah. Others contained the Babylonian narratives of the Creation and Deluge. Subsequent discoveries carried back proof of the early use of writing far beyond the time of Moses and even of Abraham (Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967, p. 7).

One of the modern ways in which the Gospels are studied is through the discipline known as form criticism. Form criticism attempts to classify the material found in the Gospels according to their literary form. Such classifications include miracles stories, sayings and narratives. Consequently the Gospels are divided up into different segments known as pericopes and classified accordingly.

Go Too Far

While there is nothing wrong with categorizing the Gospels into these different forms, many critics go a step further and attempt to determine the reliability of certain events or sayings according to their form.

Supernatural Jesus

F.F. Bruce points out that form criticism confirms the fact of the supernatural portrait of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.

But perhaps the most important result to which Form Criticism points is that, no matter how far back we may press our researches into the roots of the gospel story, no matter how we classify the gospel material, we never arrive at a non-supernatural Jesus . . . All parts of the gospel record are shown by various groupings to be pervaded by a consistent picture of Jesus as Messiah, the Son of God . . . Thus Form Criticism has added its contribution to the overthrow of the hope once fondly held, that by getting back to the primitive stage of gospel tradition we might recover a purely human Jesus, who simply taught the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1979, p. 33).

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness (Luke 3:1,2).

All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the text it studies; what vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes, under what influences . . . This is done with immense erudition and great ingenuity. At first sight it is very convincing . . . What forearms me against all these Reconstructions is the fact that I have seen from the other end of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstructing the genesis of my own books in just this way . . . My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record 100 percent failure . . . Now this surely ought to give us pause. The reconstruction of the history of a text, when the text is ancient, sounds very convincing. But one is after all sailing by dead reckoning; the results cannot be checked by fact. In order to decide how reliable a method is, what more could you ask for than to be shown an instance where the same method is at work and we have the facts to check it by? Well, that is what I have done. And we find, that when this check is available, the results are either always, or nearly always, wrong. The 'assured results of modern scholarship,' as to the way in which an old book was written, are 'assured,' we may conclude because the men who knew the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff (Cited by Walter Hooper, ed., Christian Reflections, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1967, n.p.).

After looking at the question of the New Testament's historical accuracy we can arrive at the following conclusions:

1.The question of the New Testament's historical accuracy is of utmost importance because God has revealed Himself by means of historical events. This is especially true in the New Testament when God became a man.

2.Those who wrote about Jesus were either eyewitnesses to the events in His life or recorded eyewitness testimony.

3.The New Testament was written soon after the death and resurrection of Christ. There was not enough time for the message to be altered.

4. We know that many of the New Testament books were read aloud in the churches. The message was open for all to hear and evaluate.

4. The disciples were able to be cross-examined by their contemporaries about the events they proclaimed. They preached their message in the very city where many of the events took place.

5. Paul's letters were written during the eyewitness period. They confirmed many of the main facts of the gospel.

6.The evidence concerning the events, places, and names mentioned in the New Testament conclusively affirms the basic historical reliability of the text. Therefore, the testimony of law comes into play. Since the document has come down to us where we would expect to find it, without any tampering and that it contains no obvious errors or contradictions, it should be given the benefit of the doubt in matters where there is no independent evidence to confirm or deny its teachings. Therefore, we should rightly assume that the New Testament is a reliable historical document