Were the New Testament (NT) documents written close enough to the events that they record to be used. In a recent Facebook discussion regarding the latest work on Josephus’ report of Jesus, some claimed that Josephus’ writings are not useful. Why? Because Josephus was not an eyewitness of Jesus, despite the fact that he knew eyewitnesses. They believe it is irrelevant because he wrote about Jesus 60 years after the crucifixion. They are obviously expecting 21st century news reports from 2000 years ago. Ancient history doesn’t work that way!
Let’s take another well-known death from history – Julius Caesar. Shakespeare was really not the primary source for information about his death. Julius Caesar was a powerful figure in history and had advantages over a crucifixion in a far flung part of the Roman empire, but the records for his death are far less reliable by modern standards than for Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
First, we will look at the early written reports. Reports written closer to an event are in general better than those written long periods later. Reports written by people positioned to potentially have real knowledge are generally more reliable than those written by people who had only late peripheral knowledge of the events described.
In the timelines here, data regarding Caesar’s death is above the line and that for Jesus is below the line. On the “normalized version, the events are plotted as if they happened at the same time to make it easy to compare. Notice that the reports of Caesar’s assassination come from 60 to 150+ years after the event. There is uncertainty in when Nicolaus of Damascus wrote his account, but he did have some connections to the Roman government, though he was from Damascus. It is not known what his sources were or if he knew anyone with first-hand knowledge. The next account from Plutarch was written much later and describes the attack differently. He again had Roman connections and apparently did much research, but we don’t know his sources. Suetonius is reported to have used Nicolaus’ work and probably other sources. No other ancient accounts are reported.
For the resurrection, written reports began at least by 25 years after the event and can be traced to an oral tradition that was established no more than 7 years after the event, and perhaps stabilized within months of the resurrection. All of the gospels were likely written within 50 years of Jesus death and then in addition, there are non-Christian reports from 60-90 years after the death. Who wrote the reports? The NT accounts were written by eyewitnesses and by those personally acquainted with eyewitnesses.
How sure are we that we accurately have what was originally written? Could the original writing have been altered over time? Once again, the New Testament reports win overwhelmingly. In the last figure, you can see that the copies of the key reports of Caesar’s death are from hundreds to 1400 years after they were written. By comparison the NT copies are much closer to when they were written. Certainly, there are textural variations between the various copies but with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus other translations and quotations from the text in other writings, we can be confident that what we have is what was written. The few verses that are in question are clearly noted in modern Bible translations.
It is fair to ask why we should believe reports of Jesus’ death and resurrection. However, if one digs into it, the documentation that we have is extraordinary. Any explanation for who Jesus is must use the primary sources and accept that they are remarkably early and well documented.
Recent Comments