Isn't there a lack of historical evidence for Jesus?

There are around 6000 ancient New Testament manuscripts or fragments dating from as early as 120AD that still exist today. Although we have manuscripts in the original Koine Greek there are also many in various languages that were spread across three continents of the ancient world. As a comparison there are less than a dozen manuscripts of Aristotle’s Poetics and the earliest one is from 1000 years after he wrote.
Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars have less than a dozen ancient manuscripts from 1000 years after his life. Homer’s Iliad has about 2000 manuscripts and none closer than 2000 years to the original. These trusted ancient secular documents have nowhere near as many as the New Testament’s 6000 manuscripts. Due to the sheer number of manuscripts that survived, we can be extremely confident that the scripture we have today is very close to the original manuscripts.

Beyond this, around 25,000 archeological digs have been done that connect to or support biblical content. Skeptics thought for years that the Apostle John got it wrong when he claimed there was a pool called Bethesda in John 5, until it was found by Archeologists in the 1930’s just as he described. In Acts 18:12 Luke used the greek word “proconsul” which was not used anywhere else in classical literature. Again skeptics moaned, until in Delphi an inscription dated to AD51 was found referencing not only a “proconsul” but the very proconsul that Luke talked about, Gallio. There are many examples of these kinds of findings. These types of extra-biblical evidences support the surprising accuracy of the New Testament writers not only as eye witnesses but as historians. There is no ancient document that comes close to having as much historical evidence as the New Testament. If the New Testament can’t be trusted, then no ancient document can be.

Comments