The Reliability of the Bible - Part 7 - The New Testament - Review of the New

I encourage you to research the individual propositions within this entry yourself. In your research, please be aware of the bias of your source material (e.g. religious sites versus sceptic's sites versus material meant for pure scientific/philosophical knowledge).

A cursory glance at the Old Testament Table and the New Testament table will tell you that it goes without saying. Actually, it goes without saying so much, that it should be screamed at the mountain tops.

The Old Testament and the New Testatment are two entirely different beasts. Two different kettles of fish. Apples and oranges. Night and day.

Although to be fair, in terms of reliability, the Old Testament, while clearly being a dusky night, the New Testament is a bleary, overcast day besieged by fog.

In any case, one of the key things that the New Testament has working for it is that it does not claim to portray as much history as the Old Testament does. Only the first 5 books of the New Testament – the Gospels and Acts – make any claim to historicity as they seek to be a somewhat biographical record of the life of Jesus, and to a lesser extent, the Apostles. The other 22 books are 21 letters and 1 large apocalyptic prophesy (Revelations). The letters – Epistles – were written by various supposedly important members of the early Christian Church, addressed to one of the following:

1. Other supposedly important members of the early Christian Church;
2. Churches in particular locations; or
3. Their flock at large.

These letters do not really discuss supposedly historical events as much as they are an attempt to bring the church/flock in line with what the writer thought to be a more acceptable religious and philosophical framework – to condemn what the author considered unacceptable, applaud what was considered worthy, and make various suggestions in between. But simply making less of a claim to historicity (at least in quantity, as the life and works of Jesus are probably far more important to the Christian faith than all the several historical books in the Old Testament) is not the only thing that the New Testament can claim in its favour. It's only fair to give credit where credit is due, so I'm going to lay it out for ya.

1. Except in one case, an individual book in the New Testament generally appears to be written by a single author as opposed to by several different authors whose separate manuscripts were later quilted together.
2. Most modern scholars agree that at least 8 (and maybe up to 11 or 12) of the 27 books of the New Testament were written by the persons to whom the works are traditionally ascribed and there is some (although it is exceedingly minimal in some cases) information about these persons outside of their biblical narratives. I know this doesn't sound like much, but this beats back the Old Testament, which has 12 more books to choose from, by at least 5 and 1/2 books.
3. Where the New Testament is being explicitly historical, it was written between 35 and 65 years after the end of the events they claim to describe, as opposed to hundreds of years
4. The original manuscripts which contributed to the New Testament were written over a century as opposed to over 800 years.
5. While the first canonisation of the New Testament didn't occur until, at earliest, around 400AD (about 275 years after the last book was written), there is evidence that the majority of the New Testament enjoyed some sort of formal (although not canonised) status among most Christians from around 250AD (just over a century after the last was written). Once again, it doesn't sound like much. A century is still an awfully long time for things to get screwed up after all. But it still looks like an awfully clear day when pitted against the darkness of the Old Testament.

Now that I've sufficiently championed the virtues of the New Testament to the extent that such was warranted, I'm now going to explain why I don't believe the New Testament is particularly reliable anyway. In doing this, I'm going to split the New Testament into 4. The first division is the Gospels, which are the first 5 books of the bible. These books claim to describe the life and works of Jesus. The second division is the genuine Pauline Epistles – letters not only attributed to Paul the Apostle, but those which modern scholars agree were likely authored by Paul. The third division is the pseudepigraphic Pauline Epistles – letters attributed to Paul that were most likely written (perhaps after his death) by one of his disciples or followers. And the last division is any other Epistles – letters written by other early leaders of the Church whether genuine or not. And I'm going to address these in chronological order – that is, I'm going to address each group in the order that the books relating to that division were generally written.

Genuine Pauline Epistles

Now, isn't this curious? The genuine Pauline Epistles were written first of all the books of the New Testament? Even before the gospels describing the life and works of the central-most figure of the New Testament and, indeed, the Christian faith itself? Why yes.

For the books under this category, simply refer to the New Testament table – it's the books where Paul the Apostle's name under “likely authored by” coincides with “traditionally regarded as authored by”.

So there's this guy named Paul (actually Saul, but that story isn't really relevant here) who lived during the times of Jesus but was very sceptical of this newfound sect. Now let's be clear – Paul never actually met Jesus. He did however frequently meet Jesus' followers – after which he persecuted them (arresting them and what not). Shortly after the death of Jesus, Paul has a “vision” (well really not so much a vision, as he was temporarily struck blind, more like he heard a “divine” voice), and he converts to the religion he had spent so much time persecuting. He then spends the next two decades being one of the most successful early Christian Church missionaries ever. He was exceedingly instrumental in the spreading of the Jesus-centered Christian faith throughout the region.

After his conversion, he wrote some letters to churches in areas he had either helped establish or had by then developed a meaningful relationship with. At least 8 of these letters were so influential that they now form part of the New Testament. I don't know when Paul actually began writing letters in general, but the ones that were incorporated into the New Testament were ones written about 2 decades after the death of Jesus.

Oddly enough, there isn't really any evidence outside of the bible for Paul. Despite this, most scholars generally accept that some guy did exist more or less in line with Paul's description. They agree on this for a few reasons such as the internal consistences of the genuine Pauline epistles and the fact that Paul was so well known and influential that shortly after his death, people attempted to forge epistles under his name so that their ideas could gain traction (the pseudopigraphic epistles), as well as other reasons.

Being that as it may, I consider the genuine Pauline letters to be one of the most reliable parts of the New Testament. This is because they seem to be the genuine expression of the ideas and beliefs of a very influential leader of the early Christian Church. Whether you want to extend this by saying that his being (1) an early Christian, and (2) influential, is sufficient to consider his beliefs a good moral basis for your own life is quite another story. And we won't talk about that here.

Pseudopigraphic Pauline Epistles

Still no Gospels. Interesting isn't it? And once again, for an indication of which books fall here, it's where Paul the Apostle under “traditionally regarded as authored by” does not coincide with “likely authored by”.

Well, there isn't much to say here except that, a few people wrote letters to specific churches or to Christians in general, and attributed the letters to Paul (either on purpose or they were later attributed to Paul although the epistle may have borne no author). Most of these persons were likely followers of Paul or people otherwise close to him and/or subscribed at least somewhat to his philosophy. And these people are shrouded in anonymity. A common feature of the bible, it seems.

Despite not being genuinely written by Paul, these epistles may once again be considered “reliable” to the extent that they reliably express the views of someone in the early Christian Church. Once again, I say that to accept this is one thing. To consider the views of someone who lived in an era where mental illness was traditionally mistaken for demon possession is quite another. Although to be completely fair, in my experience, a lot of people attribute the most basic of human failings (a mean boss, an unfaithful spouse, an unruly teenager) to demonic influences. But I digress.

The Gospels

Finally. We've gotten to the gospels, written at least 35 years after the death of Jesus Christ. When comparing the post-occurrence delay in the documentation of events within the Old Testament, 35 years seems like nothing. But far from vindicating a 35 year lag, it should only emphasise the fatuity of the Old Testament's supposed reliability. This time lag aside, I find the timing (as in the sequencing of events) leading up to the writing of the Gospels rather curious. Think about it.

Now, I haven't quite yet gone into a great deal of research on the historicity of Jesus, but from what I've seen, I'm relatively certain that there was a 1^st century religious teacher who inspired many with his philosophy, which in some ways was way ahead of its time, and which branched away from certain traditional Jewish tenets. The evidence of this man's deistic nature and miraculous works however is much less compelling. But still, using a historical albeit human Jesus, let's consider the time lines.

Jesus existed, he taught, he inspired, he created a following that was somewhat removed from traditional Judaism. He died, but his following, though relatively small, survives his death. Paul the Apostle (also called Paul the Evangelist) converts to Christianity after experiencing a personal revelation. Paul successfully helps Christianity spread through missionary activity and writings.

Paul was so influential, that after his death, several of his followers continued in his tradition – writing to followers at various locations to iron out crinkles in the Christian philosophy being practised there. Almost 10 years after Paul's death (and 35 years after Jesus' death), Christianity was so popular that people found it necessary to solidify the faith by documenting the life and works of the figure central to its teachings – Jesus. By this time, people frequently spoke of Jesus and his alleged work (with some measure of an oral tradition developing), and there were some writings about it, but no one had ever committed to writing it down in one reliable swipe.

Keep in mind that the Gospels were written by anonymous persons, with the writers of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, borrowing material from the Gospel of Mark. In fact, the Gospel of Mark is considered the first of the Gospels, and seems to have been written using a collection of written and oral stories, but also some historical material. Now, how reliable can this be?

To draw a parallel, imagine Michael Jackson. I'm taking MJ because, internationally, he is one of the most well known musical artists of all time. Imagine that he lived in an era where communication technology equaled that of 1^st century Palestine. Some people saw him dance, others saw him sing, and he creates a sizable following. Eventually, he dies, but only after his death does some guy who never saw him dance and never heard him sing decides that MJ is the greatest entertainer who ever danced the earth. This guy then significantly increases the following of people who consider MJ to be this amazing entertainer, helping to teach other people to sing and dance like MJ based on how the followers of MJ sang and dance. He takes the best of their copy-cat moves and talents (although how much of these moves really originated from MJ or look anything like what MJ did is debatable) and spreads it across Palestine.

Eventually, 35 years after MJ is dead, somebody decides to write a biography of his life and highlights of the concerts he put on. How accurate is this likely to be? Sure MJ was a great singer, but could he have maintained a high note for so long that all dogs within a 1 mile radius were petrified into silence for weeks? Sure he was a great dancer, but did he really walk across the face of the moon? As MJ's posthumous fame increases, how much will the truth behind real events deteriorate as they are exaggerated? The answer to that is surely “quite a lot”. This is certain to be true (truer even) of Jesus, as people are not to be convinced of significant talent, but of genuine divinity. With miracles, after all, the sky is the limit.

So I have little doubt that Jesus existed. What I loudly contest is that the Jesus who actually walked this earth was significantly similar to the Jesus we read about in the New Testament.

Other Epistles

There isn't really much to say here that hasn't already been said. It is only now to attribute these epistles to other persons. The only interesting thing to note here is that where letters are attributed to some other established person in the Early Christian Church (e.g. John or Peter), research has indicated that these persons did not write the letters, and that the true author was some unknown person. More of the same.

In conclusion of this Part 7 entry, I'd just like to acknowledge that my discussion didn't really touch on Acts or Revelations, which are 2 very interesting books. Maybe I'll discuss them in a later entry. Or maybe not. I believe I've already made my point here. But there is still one last entry to go.