Is the New Testament credible

Answer 1

Christians say the New Testament, like the Old Testament, is entirely reliable, although some acknowledge minor errors that they say do not affect the theology of the Bible.

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called synoptic gospels, because they are reasonably consistent in their content, but even they differ on important points.

Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament)says that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.

Origen (Commentary on John), in defending John's Gospel, which differs significantly from the other three, said "although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually".

Acts of the Apostles is considered famous for its discrepancies with Paul's epistles and for its historical inaccuracies.

The second century Roman teacher, Gaius, called Revelation "heretical".

Note that, in early Christianity, the form of the New Testament was not fixed. This is because it is a collection of writings from various sources. At a big conference in, I think, the third century it was decided which writings would be kept in and which excluded, and there was a quasi-political motive in some of the exclusions. So it's up to you to judge whether the whole collection can be considered reliable.

Answer 2

The New Testament is credible for those who do not examine it closely. Christians who merely 'read' the gospels for inspiration find what they are looking for. The gospels, written by four different authors, seem to substantiate each other. Acts of the Apostles tells a story about the subsequent development of the Church and refers to some of the same events as does Paul in his epistles.

On closer examination, this credibility falls away. The Jesus Seminar, a conservative group not at all dedicated to undermining the gospels but rather seeking to affirm what can be affirmed in the New Testament, acknowledges that much of the material attributed to Jesus can not have been historically true.

Scholars now say that Mark's Gospel was written first of the New Testament gospels, and that Matthew and Luke actually relied on Mark, as well as the hypothetical 'Q' document, for everything they knew about Jesus. Scholars also say that John's Gospel was inspired by Luke, but with a small amount of material taken direct from Mark. Far from substantiating each other, the gospels demonstrate that only the author of Mark's Gospel could have known anything about the gospel Jesus.

The early Church Father, Origen, defending John's Gospel in the face of its many inconsistencies with the other gospels, said (Commentary on John) "although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually." The respected theologian, Raymond E. Brown, in discussing differences even between the synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke, says (An Introduction to the New Testament), "Inspiration does not guarantee historicity or reconcilability; otherwise God should have inspired the two evangelists to give us the same record." He says that Mark seems to depend on traditions (and perhaps already shaped sources) received in Greek - hardly a ringing endorsement of its credibility.

Acts of the Apostles has long been supposed to have been written by Luke, a companion of the Apostle Paul. SCholars now say that the author could not have been a companion of Paul, because of the many discrepancies between Acts and Paul's own account in the epistles. Acts bcomes less credible the more it is studied.