Is the New Testament Reliable?

By /

The New Testament is one of the most renowned collections of 1st-century documents, with ample evidence supporting its reliability. However, it is often subjected to biased, inconsistent, and unfair scrutiny by those seeking to undermine its credibility through various means.

Restoration to Preservation

“…the rise of the science of textual criticism in the 16th century. After that, we have had hundreds of scholars working extremely hard over the following five centuries to restore the New Testament text to its original state. Keep in mind that textual criticism is not just performed on the Old and New Testament texts, but in all other ancient literature as well: Plato (428/427 – 348/347 B.C.E.), Herodotus (c. 484-c. 425 B.C.E.), Homer (Ninth or Eighth Century B.C.E.), Livy (64or 59 B.C.E-17 C.E.), Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.), and Virgil (70 – 19 B.C.E.)” – The New Testament Documents: Can They Be Trusted? Edward D. Andrews p.35

“NT Textual scholar Harold Greenlee writes, “This ‘higher criticism’ has often been applied to the Bible in a destructive way, and it has come to be looked down on by many evangelical Christians.” – Greenlee, J. Harold. The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition. Baker Publishing Group, p. 2. Quoted in Andrews, Edward D. The New Testament Documents: Can They Be Trusted? Christian Publishing House, 2020, p. 37.

GREEK NT PRESERVED THROUGH RESTORATION STUDY

“The Nestle Greek New Testament (first published in 1898) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, now in its 28th edition, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is now known as the Nestle-Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. Textual scholars use the abbreviation “NA”. The NA is now in its 28th edition (2012), which is abbreviated NA²⁸. Throughout the 130 years since 1881, there have been decades of manuscript discoveries. One might expect significant changes between the WH text of 1881 and the 2012 NA²⁸ text. However, The NA²⁸ is 99.5% the same as the 1881 WH Greek New Testament.” – Andrews, Edward D. The New Testament Documents: Can They Be Trusted? Christian Publishing House, 2020, p. 37.

The consistency between the NA²⁸ Greek New Testament (2012) and the WH Greek New Testament (1881), with 99.5% textual agreement, is crucial evidence for Christians affirming the preservation and reliability of the New Testament over 144 years (1881–2025). Over the 130 years from the initial publication of the WH text (1881) to the NA²⁸ (2012), decades of manuscript discoveries have validated the accuracy of earlier critical editions. Despite these discoveries, the text remains remarkably stable, demonstrating careful transmission. For Christians, this reinforces confidence in the divine preservation of Scripture, counters claims of corruption, and highlights the New Testament’s reliability as a trustworthy reflection of the original writings. This evidence underscores the harmony between faith and scholarship, encouraging further exploration of the Bible’s historical integrity.

“On the contrary, in comparison to classical works, we are overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of existing New Testament manuscripts. We should also keep in mind that about seventy-five percent of the New Testament does not even require the help of textual criticism because that much of the text is unanimous, and thus, we know what it says. Of the other twenty-five percent, about twenty percent make up trivial scribal mistakes that are easily corrected. Therefore, textual criticism focuses mainly on a small portion of the New Testament text. The facts are clear: the Christian, who reads the New Testament, is fortunate to have so many manuscripts, with so many dating so close to the originals, with 500 hundred years of hundreds of textual scholars who have established the text with a level of certainty unimaginable for ancient secular works.” – Andrews, Edward D. The New Testament Documents: Can They Be Trusted? Christian Publishing House, 2020, p. 39.

Footnote:

(26) The numbers in this paragraph are rounded for simplicity purposes

Of the small amount of the text affected by variant readings, the vast majority of these are minor slips of the pen, misspelled words, etc., or intentional but quickly analyzed changes. We are certain what the original reading is in these places. A far smaller number of changes present challenges to establishing the original reading. It has always been said and remains true that no central doctrine is affected by a textual problem. Only rarely does a textual issue change the meaning of a verse. [30] Still, establishing the original text wherever there are variant readings is vitally important. Every word matters!

(30) Leading textual scholar Daniel Wallace tells us, after looking at all of the evidence, that the percentage of instances where the reading is uncertain and a well-attested alternative reading could change the meaning of the verse is a quarter of one percent, i.e., 0.0025%. – Andrews, Edward D. The New Testament Documents: Can They Be Trusted? Christian Publishing House, 2020, p. 41.

With all this in mind, less than 1 percent of the text is critically analyzed or debated. However, no core doctrine is affected by textual variants, regardless of how they may have arisen.

F.F. Bruce

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.[22] Somehow or other, there are people who regard a ‘sacred book’ as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings — firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date…

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC), there are several extant manuscripts, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17), only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty manuscripts of any consequence, only one of which, that containing fragments of Books 3-6, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two manuscripts, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant manuscripts of his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals…

The study of the kind of attestation found in manuscripts and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.[26] This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of manuscripts increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth REMARKABLY SMALL. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient manuscripts was second to none: 

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. [27]

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Kingsley Books, pp. 13–15. (Italics, bold and all caps are mine.)

Footnotes; located (Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Kingsley Books, p. 15.)

[22] Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1963), p. 189, for the surprised reaction of a classical historian to ‘basic assumptions of form-criticism of the extremer sort’.

[26] Another very important class of witnesses to the text of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions in other languages, the oldest of which, the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, go back to the latter half of the second century. Valuable help can also be derived from early church lectionaries. [27] The Bible and Archaeology (1940), pp. 288f. The exhaustive enquiry into the dates of the New Testament books by J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), argues that everything in the New Testament was written before AD 70, the latest book being Revelation, which he dates preferably under Galba (June 68-January 69). The pivot of his case is the Gospel of John, to the final form of which he gives a date no later than AD 65. I should not go all the way with some of his early dating, for I believe that one or two of the New Testament documents do imply that the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) had already taken place. But Dr Robinson’s case is so well researched and closely reasoned that no one from now on should deal with this question of dating without paying the most serious attention to his arguments.

It is important to clarify that the term textual corruption does not imply that a text is destroyed or beyond repair. Rather, it is a broad term used to describe various issues that can arise in the transmission of manuscripts, such as spelling errors, smudges, miscopies, skipped lines, torn pages, or intentional and accidental alterations, including missing letters or words. Christians have been open and transparent about these textual variations for many years. The goal is not to treat every scholar’s conclusions as authoritative over Scripture, but rather to recognize their value in helping us understand the facts about the New Testament manuscripts. What matters is if what they are saying holds any wait to the evidence we have. The information from Daniel B. Wallace below comes from this video, so please read all the way through before judging or just watch the video for yourself.

Daniel B. Wallace

“We don’t have the original manuscripts to the New Testament. [They were] They all disappeared within a century, I’m pretty convinced, by copying and copying and copying, frequent handling. The early church was far more concerned to get the gospel out than they were to do exact copying of the New Testament, and that actually is a blessing. Because, they didn’t have those kinds of controls, and consequently, you get copies that are not through just one stream, but tons of people all over the place are making these copies.

So [here’s] here’s a man who lives in Corinth. He’s gonna be visiting Rome, and he says, ‘Hey, I heard [Paul] Paul wrote a letter to you guys too. I wanna write that out. Do you mind if I copy it when I get there?’ ‘Sure, that’s no problem.’ This happened, I’m sure, dozens and dozens of times over, and those manuscripts would’ve lasted as much as 80–90 years but would’ve fallen apart from all these copies being made.

So we don’t have the originals. They disappeared, and all the copies that we have disagree with each other at some point; sometimes it’s quite a few disagreements. But we have hundreds of thousands of textual variants among our manuscripts. So a question to ask here is: how badly did the scribes corrupt the New Testament? It’s absolutely proven that they did. No two main manuscripts are alike, so, unless one of them is pristine, every single scribe made mistakes.

So because the original manuscripts disappeared, and because no two copies agree with each other completely, we have to do textual criticism, and we can’t just rely on one. It’s imperfect. So scholars have to reconstruct on that basis. But when you look at the number of textual variants, there’s hundreds of thousands of them. As Bart Ehrman likes to say, ‘There are more textual variants than there are words in the original New Testament.’ That’s actually an understatement. But you have to not just look at the number of variants; you have to look at the nature of these variants. And the best estimates are that at least [at least] at least 99.8% of them affect nothing. Most are spelling differences. There’s different ways to spell John. There’s different ways to spell Mary. They’re not gonna affect anything. But the 1/5 of one percent that do affect things are the ones that scholars talk about and disagree over on a number of these issues.

But the bottom line is it does not matter, in some respects, which New Testament you use, because no essential doctrine is jeopardized by any of these textual variants. Even Bart Ehrman, who wrote Misquoting Jesus, can say the same thing. So that’s true on that end, but at the same time, we want to know what the original text said in all the details, and so the great majority of scholars have very few disagreements over these passages. For example, most scholars would say the long ending of Mark’s gospel, Mark 16:9–20, is almost surely not authentic, and they still put it in the Bibles, typically in smaller print, or in brackets, or in footnotes. The oldest authorities don’t have this. So there’s a wide consensus on the vast majority of textual variants, and again, there’s no essential doctrine that’s jeopardized by any of these textual variants. That is extremely confident, and it’s very important to know that.” – Daniele B. Wallace (Video)

“In the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman says about his disagreements with Bruce Metzger, whom Ehrman described as his doctor-father and to whom he had dedicated Misquoting Jesus: ‘[E]ven though we may disagree on important religious questions—he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not—we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement—maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands’ (252)…” – Wallace, Daniel B. The Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. Kregel Publications, 2011, pp. 20–21, fn. 3.

Craig L. Blomberg

Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the books of the New Testament were copied with extraordinary care. Because of the sheer volume of manuscripts, both in Greek and in various other ancient languages into which the Scriptures were translated, there are an enormous number of textual variants. But the vast majority of these are extremely minor, and the size of the manuscript tradition also makes it possible to determine beyond any reasonable doubt what the original reading would have been in upwards of 99 PERCENT of the text of the New Testament. Where there still is uncertainty, we can at least know that the original text is represented by one of the variant readings of a given passage. We do not have to worry that some new discovery could overthrow the testimony of so many thousands of manuscripts and their consistent usage throughout the history of the church. Certainly no theological doctrine or ethical practice of the Christian faith relies solely or even primarily on any textually disputed passage or passages.Blomberg, Craig L.

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs. B&H Publishing Group, Kindle ed., 2016. (bold and ALL CAPS are mine.)

Multiple Scholarly Consensus on the Reliable Preservation of the New Testament

Scholars Mentioned: David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, Robert B. Sloan, Scott Carroll, and Daniel B. Wallace

Dockery, Mathews, and Sloan have recently written, “For most of the biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the text about which any questions occur.” (Dockery et al., FBI, 176) They conclude: “It must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. . . . Although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading.” (Dockery et al., FBI, 182) Additionally, according to textual expert Scott Carroll, “No biblical discovery has ever undermined our confidence in scripture.” (Carroll, lecture, 2013) “In the last 130 years,” explains Daniel Wallace, “there has not been a single manuscript discovery that has produced a new reading for the New Testament that scholars think is authentic . . . not a single manuscript that tells us a totally different story about Jesus.” He continues, “In about the second century BC the rules for careful copying and textual criticism were developed heavily in Alexandria, Egypt, which became the primary scholarly city in the ancient world for book reproduction (before the New Testament was ever written). The New Testament manuscripts became benefactors of that approach.” (Wallace, lecture, 2013)

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Thomas Nelson, Kindle ed., p. 66. (ALL CAPS & Bolding are mine)

What About The Intentional Changes by Some Scribes?

Scholars mentioned: Bart Ehrman, Stanley E. Porter, Andrew W. Pitts

In his popular book Misquoting Jesus, as well as his academic book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman argues that there are both accidental alterations in the text by scribes, but also intentional corruptions where they aimed to change the text to fit a particular doctrinal agenda. However, Porter and Pitts conclude that while we must allow that certain scribes may have had doctrinal agendas that impact their transmission of the text from time to time, this was the exception rather than the rule. . . . Ancient scribes generally considered it their duty to copy rather than interpret or alter the text to suit their or others’ doctrinal beliefs. This is not to say doctrinal alterations did not happen from time to time, but it certainly was not part of regular scribal practice. . . . This is where Ehrman himself is inconsistent. He admits that doctrinally motivated alteration was the exception, not the rule, but builds his entire case upon variants that are often easily explained by using . . . standard transcriptional probabilities. (Porter and Pitts, FNTTC, 119–20)

McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Thomas Nelson, Kindle ed., p. 65-66. (Bolding are mine)

How Early Are The Manuscripts To The Originals?

Scholars mentioned: Frederick J. A. Hort, Maurice A. Greenlee, J. H. Glenny, John Warwick Montgomery, Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, Walter C. Kaiser, Sir Frederic George Kenyon.

Even back in the late 1880s, leading biblical scholar F. J. A. Hort rightfully noted that “in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.” (Hort and Westcott, NTOG, 561) In 1977 Greenlee stated, “The number of available MSS of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. . . . The earliest extant MSS of the NT were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature.” (Greenlee, INTTC, 15) 

The New Testament is the most remarkably preserved book of the ancient world. Not only do we have a great number of manuscripts but they are very close in time to the originals they represent. Some partial manuscripts of the NT are from the second century AD, and many are within four centuries of the originals. These facts are all the more amazing when they are compared with the preservation of other ancient literature. (Glenny, PS, 95) 

Montgomery says that “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.” (Montgomery, HC, 29) Metzger and Ehrman put the large number of New Testament manuscripts into perspective: 

In contrast with these figures [of other ancient works], the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by a wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of a lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant that were copied within a century or so after the composition of the original documents. (Metzger and Ehrman, TNT, 51) 

Leading Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser reports that no time before the present has witnessed such unprecedented confirmation of “biblical events, persons, and historical settings as we have during the past century of ongoing, successful archaeological exploration.” (Kaiser, ASB, ix) 

Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, a British paleontologist and classical Biblical scholar, was also the director and principal librarian of the British Museum (1889–1931) and second to none in authority for issuing statements about MSS. He stated that besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors. In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century—say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing compared to that which separates most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet’s death. (Kenyon, HTCNT, 4) [NOTE-1: Kenyon comes from an older scholarship as he lived from15 January 1863 – 23 August 1952. However he is still in line where it matters to modern scholarship]

“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.” John Warwick Montgomery

 Kenyon elsewhere noted, “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in FACT NEGLIGIBLE, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” (Kenyon, BA, 288) Since Kenyon wrote this, his conclusions have been verified by modern-day biblical scholarship.
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Thomas Nelson, Kindle ed., pp. 67–68. (ALL CAPS, Notes & Bolding are mine)

New Testament Archeological Evidence

Independent archaeological research has solidified the authenticity and the historical reliability of the New Testament. Some of the discoveries include:

Luke’s Accuracy Confirmed: The Case of Lysanias the Tetrarch

  • Luke refers to Lysanias as being the tetrarch of Abilene at the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, circa 27 A. D. (Luke 3:1) Historians accused Luke of being in error, noting that the only Lysanias known was the one killed in 36 B. C. Now, however, an inscription found near Damascus refers to “Freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch” and is dated from 14 and 29 A. D.

Erastus: Confirming Paul’s Mention in Romans

Erastus: Confirming Paul’s Mention in Romans

Paul, Trophimus, and the Temple Warning: Supporting Acts 21

  • Acts 21 records an incident which broke out between Paul and certain Jews from Asia. These Jews accused Paul of defiling the Temple by allowing Trophimus, a Gentile, to enter it. In 1871, Greek inscriptions were found, now housed in Istanbul which read:
    NO FOREIGNER MAY ENTER WITHIN THE BARRICADE WHICH SURROUNDS THE TEMPLE AND ENCLOSURE. ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO THANK FOR HIS ENSUING DEATH.

Gallio the Proconsul: Luke’s Account in Acts 18

  • Luke addresses Gallio with the title Proconsul (Acts 18:12). A Delphi inscription verifies this when it states, “As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia …”

Luke’s Reference to Publius as ‘First Man of Malta’ Confirmed

  • Luke calls Publicus, the chief man of Malta, “First man of the Island.” (Acts 28:7) Inscriptions now found do confirm Publicus as the “First man”. (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 110-111)

The Five Porticoes of Bethesda and the Pool of Siloam Unearthed

  • The five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate and the pool of Siloam mentioned in John 5:2 and 9:1-7 has now been unearthed.
  • “Other New Testament incidents have been illuminated by archeological discoveries in and around Jerusalem. The pool of Bethesda, described in John 5:2, has been located in the northeast quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, the quarter which was called Bezetha, or ‘New Town’, in the first century AD. In 1888 excavations near St Anne’s Church, in that quarter, revealed the remains of an ancient church building, clearly intended to mark the site of Bethesda. Later excavations have identified the pool itself, or rather twin pools, lying north and south, with a rock partition between them. Porticoes evidently occupied the four sides and the partition.[160] One of the first visitors to Jerusalem after it came under Christian control, the ‘Bordeaux pilgrim’ (AD 333), saw and described the twin pools. The ‘Copper Scroll’ from Qumran gives the name in the Hebrew dual number, Beth-’eshdathain, ‘the place of the two outpourings’. There are few sites in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Gospels, which can be identified so confidently.” – Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Kingsley Books, pp. 67–68, 71. Footnote 160, cf. Jeremias, J. The Rediscovery of Bethesda, 1966.

Gabbatha and Solomon’s Porch Mentioned in John Discovered

Jacob’s Well at Sychar Unearthed

Inscription Confirms Pilate as Prefect of Judea

Bone Box of Johanan Confirms Nails Were Used in Crucifixions

  • The discovery of a bone-box of a crucified man named Johanan from the first century Palestine confirms the fact that nails were used to pierce the ankles of the victims. Such was the case of Christ, of course, and this discovery is significant in answering the skeptics who believed that the Romans used only ropes to tie the victim’s legs to the cross.

The Megiddo Mosaic: A Testament to Early Christian Worship

  • The Megiddo Mosaic, discovered in 2005 at the ancient Roman site of Legio, is a third-century Christian worship space and one of the earliest archaeological examples of a church. The mosaic features intricate geometric designs, Greek inscriptions, and a central table with an inscription dedicating it “to God Jesus Christ,” reflecting the community’s belief in Jesus’ divinity. Funded by a Roman centurion and a woman named Akeptous, the site demonstrates the unity of diverse individuals in early Christian worship, as described in Galatians 3:28. This discovery offers a glimpse into the organic and modest beginnings of Christian communities before the formalization of church structures. Now displayed at the Museum of the Bible, it serves as a profound testament to the faith and practices of early Christians.

Burial Grounds of Caiaphas Uncovered, Confirming His Historical Existence

  • In 1990, the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, and his family were uncovered. This is an undeniable fact that Caiaphas existed as a true historical figure.

Nazareth Inscription

  • The Nazareth Inscription, a marble tablet measuring 24 by 15 inches, is widely believed to be an imperial rescript issued by Emperor Claudius around 41 A.D., forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs under penalty of death. The edict is thought to respond to the widespread story of Jesus’ resurrection, which was seen as a potential political and religious threat. Its discovery and analysis reveal strong linguistic and historical ties to the rescripts of Claudius, suggesting it was intended to counter claims made by early Christians that Jesus had risen from the dead. The inscription was likely influenced by Herod Agrippa I, a close ally of Claudius, who had personal knowledge of Christianity and used the edict to suppress the emerging movement. While the Nazareth Inscription does not prove the resurrection, it confirms that the story of Christ’s resurrection was widely known and circulated very early, even within the Roman Empire.

The Pool of Gibeon

  • Archaeological excavations in 2004 uncovered the first-century Pool of Siloam in the City of David, confirming its connection to the time of Jesus (John 9). Located on the west side of the City of David, the pool is distinct from the later Byzantine pool and church nearby. A photograph from the early 1900s shows the pool before subsequent Muslim construction, describing it as a neglected parallelogram-shaped structure, approximately 53 feet long and 18 feet wide. Observers noted its intermittent water flow, attributed by locals to a mythical dragon or a natural siphon effect. This discovery provides valuable insight into the historical and biblical significance of the site. – Source: Earthly Footsteps of the Man of Galilee (1890s)

The Synagogue at Capernaum

  • The ruins of the Capernaum synagogue, first identified in 1866 and partially reconstructed in 1926, stand on the site of an earlier 1st-century building mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus taught and performed miracles (Mark 1:21–28; 3:1–6). Built from white limestone on basalt foundations, its elaborate design includes Corinthian capitals, intricate carvings, and geometric patterns, including swastikas, a common motif of the period. A 4th-century inscription on a column names the donor as “Halfu, son of Zebida,” with ties to New Testament names. The dating of the synagogue remains debated, with theories ranging from the 2nd to 4th centuries, potentially linked to the 363 earthquake or the reign of Emperor Julian. Both the synagogue and a nearby church were destroyed in the early 7th century, possibly during conflicts between Christians and Jews, but modern interfaith dialogue began nearby in Tiberias in 1942.

Erastus: A First-Century Connection to Romans 16:23

  • “Writing his Epistle to the Romans from Corinth during the winter of AD 56-57, Paul sends greetings from some of his companions, and adds: ‘Erastus the City Treasurer greets you’ (Romans 16:23). In the course of excavations in Corinth in 1929, Professor T. L. Shear found a pavement with the inscription erastvs pro : aed : s : p : stravit (‘Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense’). The evidence indicates that this pavement existed in the first century AD, and it is most probable that the donor is identical with the Erastus who is mentioned by Paul.” – Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Kingsley Books, p. 68.

The significance of such extra-Biblical evidence is of such magnitude that honest skeptics are now forced to agree that the Bible is historically accurate and reliable. To learn more read: The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top