UTT - Blog Post 23

Your professor in class today said that the New Testament was historically untrustworthy.  That evening at your study group, Sarah, Mark,Nathan and Paige all agreed and asked you why you would believe such an untrustworthy book?  Respond.  Due May 21st by Midnight. 50 points

        Well, honestly, I’d take issue with the statement that it was historically untrustworthy. I would need some good hard evidence before believing a claim like that—innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff, right?

        Besides, the Old Testament is archaeologically accurate and matches up with all known records. It provides a nice factual basis from which one can assume the validity of the New Testament, because the two are so interconnected.

        But if that weren’t enough, the New Testament can stand on its own worth. Everyone from Roman historians (Josephus, etc.) to Jewish scribes and leaders, to all accepted history will admit that Jesus both existed and did wondrous things. The other actions that are usually called into question, such as the deaths of the apostles, their miracles, and the historicity of the actions recorded in the Bible are documented through outside sources as well as within the Bible.

        Most of the controversy is centered in the Synoptic Gospels, though, and these can be dated to before A.D. 70, within thirty-five years of the original events, and have been copied with a ninety-nine percent accuracy rate which is unheard of in ancient historical documents; not to mention the thousands of copies, which are the most of any document from that or earlier time periods.

        Overall, in both archeology and history, the New Testament is without flaw—although many will claim it to be full of myths and legends in an attempt to discredit it without being able to prove their statements. It’s way easier that way, because they can’t back up what they say.