When evaluating any historical document the investigator must ask six significant questions.
1. Is this a primary or secondary source?
Historians prefer primary source material over secondary. What that means is that they prefer a document which is written during or shortly after the events recorded by people who had direct knowledge of those events. Primary source material includes letters, official records, funerary inscriptions, and books written by people who lived through the events or interviewed those who were.
Secondary sources refer to historical materials based on primary sources. A high school or college general history text book or a PBS or History Channel special would be examples of secondary sources.
The Bible is primary source material. It was written during the time the events occurred. People who were directly involved in the events write most of the books. Sometimes, as in the case of Luke, interviews provided the basis of the accounts. Either way, the material qualifies as primary source material.
2. If the document is a primary source, was it written close to the events?
If I am writing a history of the first World War, and I interview a 100 year old man who tells me his remembrances of fighting in World War I, there is a great chance for the information to be distorted. On the other hand, if I ask a Viet Nam Veteran about his experiences, then I have a better chance of getting an accurate answer. And if I ask someone who flew air raids in Kosovo, I have an even greater chance at accuracy.
With the passing of time, memories fade and legends grow. This is especially true if no one is left around to contradict your account of things. The New Testament documents can be easily dated to within 20-60 years of the actual events making them excellent primary source material.
3. If the document is a primary source was the text of the document faithfully preserved?
Rarely does one have an original autograph of an ancient document. This is particularly true of book length material. So, the question is whether or not the documents were faithfully copied over time. Was extraneous material added or removed?
We do this by looking for inconsistencies in the text or contradictions between copies. Fortunately with the New Testament particularly, we have an abundance of material with which to work. We have over 13,000 early manuscripts!
Some skeptics argue that these texts are terribly inconsistent pointing to some 200,000 variant readings. However, with such an abundance of manuscripts, this number is misleading. Let’s say there were 13,000 handwritten copies of this lesson and in half of those I left out the apostrophe in "Let’s" at the beginning of this sentence then that would count as 6,500 "errors" and 13,000 inconsistencies. After evaluating these "errors and inconsistencies" Geisler and Nix observed:
Only about one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one-sixtieth rise above ‘rivialities,’ or can in any sense be called ‘substantial variations.’ Mathematically, this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure.
Sir Frederic Kenyon says additionally that "No fundamental doctrine of Christian faith rests on a disputed reading …. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain."
So, the text has been transmitted in a fundamentally pure state. Considering it’s 2000 year journey, that in and of itself constitutes a miracle
4. Are the writers credible reporters of the facts?
The question about any historical document has to do with authorship. Who wrote it? Are they honest? Are they competent? As regards the New Testament, the argument is often made that it was written by a bunch of uneducated shepherds and fishermen.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s look at the backgrounds of the Evangelists. Matthew had been a tax collector which meant he had to have knowledge of accounting and written communication. This was a position, though hated, which required a high level of education. Luke was a physician and probably wealthy and influential in his own right. Mark was the son of a wealthy land owner and a Levite, meaning he was of the priestly caste in Jewish culture who would have been well educated. John was, indeed, a fisherman. However, that meant that he was a small business owner who had to have a knowledge of accounting and trade. He also could read and write three languages as could all the other Gospel writers.
And what about Paul. God chooses the ancient equivalent of a PhD To write most of the New Testament. They may have been common men, but hardly ignorant or uneducated.
5. Do other contemporary documents confirm the facts presented?
If I have a friend who is fighting in Iraq, and he sends me an account of the battle, and then I see the same account on CNN and I read about it in the newspaper and all the accounts agree in substance, then I can assume that my friend’s letter is accurate.
Certainly, other historical documents from the writings of Josephus to those of Pliny the Younger confirm portions of the New Testament accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. We will look at these in greater depth in a future lesson.
6. Is there archeological evidence confirming the documentary record?
In finding confirmation of documentary evidence, we can also look at the findings of archeology. If a battle reported in a document and then we find in the appropriate place, arrowheads, ashes, rubble and the bones of soldiers jumbled together, then we have confirmation of the written report.
While archeology cannot confirm questions of faith, it can give us a context by which to evaluate the documentary evidence. While it is beyond the scope of this particular lesson to go into depth about archeological evidences of the New Testament, suffice it to say that Biblical archeology has a remarkable track record of confirming the Biblical accounts over the years. As one archeologist put it, "If there’s a dispute between our theories and the book, I go with the book, because it is usually right."