By: Cougan Collins


None of the original writings of the New Testament exists nor do the originals of many classic histories that are consider accurate by scholars. Instead, we have manuscripts of these early writings. Manuscripts are copies (letter for letter) of the original. The closer the manuscript is to the original in time, the more accurate it is considered to be. Note the following examples of classic histories that scholars would consider as being reliable documents that are very close to the originals:



Let’s compare these classic histories to the New Testament documents, which was originally written around A.D. 45 - 96.



If the New Testament was a secular writing (like the classic histories) scholars would deem it as one the most reliable and accurate documents in existence. However, since it involves miracles and the existence of God, they question its validity even though its manuscripts are closer in years to the original and it has thousands more copies than the classic histories they consider accurate. 


The evidence is overwhelming that the New Testament is indeed a reliable source of history as recorded by first century eyewitnesses. We have no reason to doubt their testimony that Jesus is the Son of God and all the miracles they recorded. Luke makes it clear that his account of Jesus could stand the test of scrutiny (Lk. 1:1-4).

Many of the writers of the New Testament were eyewitnesses to what happened, and we have that history recorded for us in Scripture. This is the same way we learn about anyone in history like our first president George Washington. If we believe George Washington existed based on eyewitness accounts, then we should also believe in Jesus and the events that took place in the Bible as well because the Bible is historically accurate.

Be sure to read next week’s article in which we will begin to examine some of the internal evidence that offers strong proof that Jesus is real and the Bible is accurate.