Texts were being written in the middle of the first century, which were later brought together to create the New Testament. One of the earliest texts, consists of letters written by the Saint Paul to early Christian communities between 50 and 62 AD. The argument that the New Testament is not reliable, fails to successfully challenge the Christian faith because it was written early, it is corroborated, it has not changed over time, and it is not biased.
The book of Acts is about the origins of the church, focusing especially on Peter and Paul, however it does not mention anything of their deaths. It also does not include anything of the Jewish war with the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem. The book quickly ends with Paul getting arrested in Rome, and says nothing of what happened after. These events and details are crucial because they significantly changed the relationship between the Romans and the Jews. Because these details were left out, it is likely that he wrote Acts before the events occurred. Because Luke was likely written before all of the Synoptic Gospels (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that describe events from a similar point of view, as contrasted to that of the Gospel of John), and the Synoptic Gospels were written before the mid-60’s AD.
Because the New Testament documents were written within 30 years of the events they recorded, it is highly unlikely that they are false or made up. Also if the authors did make up the Synoptic Gospels, there would be eyewitnesses that were still alive to prove that the authors made it up and were lying. Eyewitness testimony is the best evidence that the New Testament is reliable. In Acts 2:32, Luke proclaimed “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we were all witnesses.” This claims that the apostles are eyewitnesses which further proves that the Bible is trustworthy.
However, the different variations of the New Testament gives validation to the argument that the New Testament is not reliable. There are simple variations such as words being misspelled and synonyms being used. But there are also more complex variants such as quantities. An example is the different accounts of the tomb. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John there are different versions of what really happened. In Matthew it states, “when the two women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, went to visit the tomb, there was an earthquake and an angel came down from heaven, rolled back the stone and sat on it. He told them Jesus was risen, so they left quickly and apparently without entering the tomb, so that they could tell the disciples.” In the book of Mark it says, “when the three women, Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome, went to visit the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away. They entered the tomb and saw a young man, who told them Jesus was risen and that they should go and tell the disciples and Peter. They left and told no one of this, for they were afraid.” In Luke, “when a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, another Mary and Joanna, went to visit the tomb, they saw the stone already rolled away. They entered the tomb and saw two men in shining garments, who explained that Jesus was risen. When they went to tell the apostles, Peter ran to the sepulchre and looked inside, seeing only the linen cloths laid by themselves.” Lastly, in John it states, “Mary Magdalene went alone to visit the tomb but as she approached, she saw the stone rolled away. She ran back, apparently without entering the tomb, and told of this to Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved. The two disciples both ran to the tomb and looked inside, but it was the beloved disciple who understood and believed. Mary Magdalene must have returned to the tomb, because she looked inside and saw two angels, then saw Jesus standing outside next to her.” These different accounts at the tomb make the New Testament seem unreliable because there is not one specific story that is supported. If there is one specific story that is not supported, how many other stories are there that could have possible other versions?
The New Testament is also corroborated, the corroboration is limited, though, because there is only so much evidence, but there is enough to prove that the New Testament is a reliable source. Although there are fluctuations in the evidence in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the events in each book were so similar in sequence and content that at least some sort of connection had to be presumed. It is nearly impossible for a story to be written four times by four different people, and for it not to be true.
The New Testament also has not changed over time. The book of John can be tracked back to his three personal students (http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/four-reasons-the-new- testament-gospels-are-reliable/), who then passed it on to their personal students. These men wrote down what they had been taught by their teachers. These writings are still around today which allows us to evaluate them and make sure nobody has altered the narratives and writings in any way. This is one example on how the New Testament has not changed over time. It also goes to show that we have physical proof that we can examine to show that the New Testament has not changed. This alone disproves the argument that the New Testament is not true.
The New Testament is also not biased. Why would the authors lie when they gain nothing from it? They did not gain money or power. None of the gospel authors gained anything from their testimony. However, they did receive the exact opposite. They were persecuted and all but one were put to death for their beliefs. John, the only disciple of Jesus that did not die, was only alive because he survived an attempt on his life, and instead served the rest of his life on a secluded island, Patmos, with nobody to share the gospel with. He is said to have written the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation. (https://www.christianity.com/church/church- history/timeline/1-300/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles-11629558.html)
Although the New Testament is seemingly unbiased, you have to take into account that humans are humans. They lie. We can not expect that everyone is going to tell the truth. This is why it is good to have many sources of factual, reliable evidence. Having just one single source is not enough to prove something. That reason alone is why the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are considered factual. They are from several reliable sources.
The apologetic problem that the New Testament is false or unreliable does little to challenge Christianity. There is too much evidence pointing towards it being true, than there is evidence pointing against it. However, there is evidence that does point towards the New Testament being false. One piece of evidence is the fact that people lie which could make it unreliable. However, there are bible verses that warn against false prophets. In Ezekiel 13:9 it says “My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.” If people were to falsely write information, and claim it as true, they would have the wrath of God against them. It would be pointless to lie when you know the truth, and you would have God mad at you. Nobody does something they know would get them in trouble if there are no good consequences that benefit them.
The significance of this apologetic problem is that if the New Testament was deemed unreliable, it would make that specific argument against Christianity valid. This would prove that the entire New Testament is false. If that were proven, there would be a domino affect or a chain reaction of events. The New Testament would be proven false. That would lead to the argument against Christianity being able to successfully challenge Christians in their beliefs. If the New Testament is fake, then Jesus did not rise from the dead, because that is only talked about in the New Testament. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then what is Christianity? There is no basis for the beliefs of the Christians. This means there are no Christians and no faith.
This apologetic problem fails as a challenge to the Christian faith. The New Testament is reliable. There are measures put in place to help make sure that the New Testament stays reliable also. The New Testament is reliable because it was written early, it is corroborated, it has not changed over time, and it is not biased. These reasons all help to argue the validity of the New Testament. There are skeptics who will argue that people lie. There are also skeptics who say that the information is too askew because of the difference between the books in the Gospels. The answer is this; people do not normally lie for themselves. They lie because they gain something such as money or power. The apostles did not gain anything. They even had the word of God to make sure they stayed on track with what they were writing, as God threatened them with His wrath if anything but His will was written. As for the difference in quantities, there were different eyewitnesses, people could have seen or heard of different happenings from different points of view. The information could have been misinterpreted by the time it got to the apostles. Either way, the apostles wrote and taught their own truth, the way they saw it. This evidence further proves that the argument against the New Testament fails as a challenge against Christianity. Moreover, it further proves the faith of Christians and the existence of Jesus Christ.