Is the New Testament true?

The New Testament was written, with the exception of John’s writings, in the lifetime of the apostles, and if perfectly false statements had been made, if the death of Christ had not occurred as stated, if Joseph had never begged the body of Jesus, if the miraculous events connected with His death had never occurred, the sacred writings would never have been accepted as God’s revelation, but on the contrary, vehement denials of such falsehoods would have been raised. But not one denial is heard, not one suspicion of falsehood is raised. The Christians received the sacred writings as perfectly true.

The late H.L.Hastings wrote: “We have better proof of the antiquity, the authenticity, the integrity, and the veracity of the New Testament, than of any other ancient book in the world; and we have better proof of the life, ministry, and mission of Moses, and Jesus, and Paul, and Peter, and John, than we have of the existence of Alexander, or Caesar, or Socrates, or Plato. We have hundreds more of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament books than of any other ancient writings; and they have been translated into more languages, and brought down through more independent channels than any other books.

It is true that there are differences between New Testament manuscripts, but: these are not essential to the Christian doctrine, and for no other book of similar age is a similar number of witnesses available (9 manuscripts of Caesar's Wars, 1 of Tacitus, but 5,500 of Bible parts).

The history of the text of the New Testament is much simpler and shorter than that of the Old. We have the concurrent evidence of churches and congregations, who were scattered over the civilised world, and who preserved the apostolic records with affectionate reverence. We have numberless quotations and references in the christian writings from the second century onwards. We have very ancient translations in Latin and in Syriac, that have a perfectly independent existence. And we have MSS. reaching up almost to the days when the books themselves were originally written. We know also, that from a very early period the church was divided into several rival factions; each of whom acted apart from the others; and in each of whom we possess independent evidence for the text. And here, as in the case of the Jews, it is impossible not to see how wonderfully God brought good out of evil. For, by the time the dark ages came in, during that gloomy period, marked out by the ninth and tenth centuries, when learning and religion seemed almost lost, and Europe appeared to be lapsing back into barbarism; — the Benedictine and Cistercian Abbeys, founded at a previous happier season, had stored up, unnoticed and uncared for, the ancient Greek MSS. of the New Testament, which, when required, were produced by the investigation of the scholars who mainly brought about the Reformation.

This at first sight may seem to be a great calamity, throwing a doubt upon the blessed word of God, but on a closer investigation this will be seen not to be so. Of course, God could have preserved for us a faultless manuscript, but He has allowed it to be otherwise; the New Testament has gone through the various perils that any other old writing has been subject to, though with this difference, that it has been watched over by its living Author. God, of course, could by a continued miracle have preserved to us the very copies that were written by the inspired penmen; but He has not done so. Who could have held them, and what would other Christians have done without them? As it is, all, scattered over the known world, had copies of the original from the first.

Besides, the New Testament has now the indisputable stamp of antiquity upon it. It is known, apart from the manuscripts of the New Testament, that, say, in the fourth century Greek was written in a particular manner, and it is known that various changes gradually took place in writing that language, (points, accents, and breathings being introduced,) until the same passage written in the fourth century, and written in the tenth century, do not look like the same language. Well, we have portions of the Greek New Testament, believed to have been written in the fourth century, and then each century after, with those very changes introduced as they are known to have been made. To those who value external evidences, there cannot be a stronger proof that the New Testament was written soon after the time of our Lord; indeed, the evidence is so strong, that we are not aware that it has ever been called in question, even by the most sceptical.

And, further, as one has said, "It is a good providence and a great blessing that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia, others from the Western churches. For the very distance of places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate that there could be no collusion, no altering, nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them."

While upon the subject of the infallible inspiration of Scripture, I will say a few words upon the texts, versions, etc. To be very simple, you know that until a late date all copies were made by pen. The accuracy of these copies depended, of course, upon the care of the copyist. But, even with the greatest care, it was impossible, humanly speaking, to keep out all errors. We find, therefore, that among the hundreds of manuscripts there are a large number of small variations. Most of these scarcely affect the meaning at all, being slight omissions or insertions of letters, small words, etc. Other cases occur where the meaning of a certain verse may be altered; but I think I am safe in saying that in no one manuscript is there embodied a false doctrine, or a true one eliminated. It is certainly a great mercy of God that He has preserved His truth uncontaminated through all these centuries.

Lachmann published a manual edition of the New Testament professedly based on Bentley's idea of exhibiting the text as read in the fourth century … at one fell swoop sentenced the mass of the surviving witnesses to an ignominious death, and presented us with a text formed on absolute principles of singular narrowness … .14 The neglect of internal evidence is a fatal objection. But the grand fallacy involved is that a manuscript of the fourth or fifth century must give better readings than one of the seventh or eighth. Now this is in no way certain. There is a presumption in favour of the more ancient manuscript, because each successive transcription tends to introduce new errors in addition to those it repeats. On the other hand, a copy of the ninth century may have been made from one older than any now extant, and certainly some old documents are more corrupt than many of the more recent witnesses. Every ingenuous scholar must own, to say the least, that the oldest manuscripts have some bad readings, and that the modern manuscripts have some that are good.15 Hence the distinction is not between the united evidence of the most ancient documents (Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers), and the common herd of those more recent; for rarely, if ever, is there such unanimous ancient testimony without considerable support from witnesses of a later day. The truth is that almost always, where the old documents really agree, there is large confirmation elsewhere, and where the ancients differ, so do the moderns. It is quite unfounded, therefore, to treat it as a question pure and simple between old and new. Nor is it the important point of research what particular readings existed in the days of Jerome. For notoriously errors of various kinds had then crept into both Greek and Latin copies, and no antiquity can sanctify an error. The true question is: What, using every available means to form a judgment, was the primitive text? It is often forgotten that our oldest documents are but copies. Several centuries elapsed between the original issue of the New Testament Scriptures and any manuscripts now existing. All, therefore, are on the ground of copyists differing only in degree. It is not, then, a comparison between a single eye-witness and many hearsay reporters, unless we have the original autographs. And, in fact, we know that an historian's account, three centuries after alleged facts, may be, and often is, corrected, five hundred or a thousand years after, by recurrence to sources more trustworthy, or by a more patient, comprehensive, and skilful sifting of neglected evidence.

The New Testament contains 27 books, the work of eight inspired writers, and all written within a period of fifty years. All close in our version, although not in the Greek copies, with the Spirit's "Amen" except the epistles of James and Third John. Some of these inspired penman were illiterate men, as Peter and John (Acts 4:13); others scholarly, as Luke and Paul. These books are not arranged chronologically, save, perhaps, the Gospels and Acts.

Canon of the New Testament.

It is true that numerous Christian books were in circulation, even in the days of Luke, the writer of the third Gospel and of "The Acts" (Luke 1:1), some of them attributed to the Apostles and their companions, but they were not regarded as inspired, however highly esteemed otherwise. So numerous are the quotations from the New Testament in the writings of the fathers of the first seven centuries, that the whole of the New Testament might from thence be recovered, if needs be. We frankly admit, however, that certain Epistles, as Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were not at first universally received as canonical, owing to the difficulty of communication existing in these early times. It was no easy matter then for Churches or individuals at a distance to hold mutual intercourse, and it must be borne in mind that Epistles were addressed to persons or assemblies in some instances 1000 miles apart; besides which the transcribing of accurate copies of the originals required time and care. These facts remembered, we are thankful for the extreme caution with which the canon of the New Testament was finally accepted.

First as to Christ’s death. We have the witness in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And here just a word. It is noticeable how infidel and higher critical writers will often accept the testimony of a profane writer, as if it must be true, whilst casting doubt on the veracity of a sacred writer. If they think Josephus contradicts Matthew, they will bow to Josephus as correct, and act as if Matthew were proved incorrect. Such conduct only proves bias. At the least one is as reliable as the other.

These four writers either witnessed the death of Christ or testified to it as common knowledge. In the case of John he witnessed the plunge of the spear into the side of the dead Christ, and saw the blood and the water flow therefrom, and bears special and solemn witness to the truth of his testimony.