The best arguments for the historical reliability of the New Testament are the number, dating, and accuracy of the manuscripts as well as the reliability of the sources.
First, the number of the manuscripts. In comparison to other accepted works from the ancient world, the number of extant manuscripts of the New Testament dwarfs the “competition.” The most quantifiably attested non-Biblical work of the ancient world is Homer’s Iliad, which survives in 643 copies. Other important ancient works, such as Caesar’s Gallic War, Livy’s Roman History, Tacitus’ Annals, and Thucydides’ History, all survive in anywhere from two to twenty manuscripts each. Contrast those numbers with the staggering fact that counting Greek copies alone there are 5686 extant partial or complete New Testament manuscripts. If the Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Latin translations are included, the number of copies approaches 14,000. Additionally, nearly the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church Fathers. The cumulative effect is that the evidence of manuscript quantity is overwhelming in comparison to that of other ancient works.
Second, the dating of ancient manuscripts is important in determining their reliability because older copies generally contain less copyist errors than later ones. The earliest surviving manuscripts of most ancient works date from 500 to 1000 years after their original composition. In contrast, the earliest New Testament copies can be dated from within 100 to 200 years of the originals. The earliest undisputed New Testament manuscript dates from 117 to 138, a scant half-century or so from the writing of the original document. If the same dating criterion used to judge and accept other ancient works is applied to the New Testament, there is no justification whatever for indicting it with charges of historical unreliability.
Third, the accuracy of the New Testament copies has been calculated by some scholars to be better than 99 percent. That compares to 90 to 95 percent for other works such as the Mahabharata of Hinduism and Homer’s Iliad. Though there are perhaps 200,000 variant readings spread out among the copies of the New Testament, not even one of these “errors” affect an article of faith and only fifty even significantly alter the meaning of the text. The variants actually serve to clear up many textual problems, establishing an even greater confidence in the accuracy of the manuscripts.
Fourth, the reliability of the sources of New Testament material is substantiated by the fact that the writers were eyewitness contemporaries of the events who had nothing on earth to gain and everything to lose by their radical teaching. The writers claimed to be eyewitnesses of true historical events and the testimony of scholarship confirms their claim. In particular, Luke’s historical prowess has been attested by the best of ancient world scholarship. The inclusion of potentially embarrassing narratives, such as Peter’s denial and the frequent unbelief of the disciples, further authenticates the documents and their sources. Eminent nineteenth-century legal expert Simon Greenleaf, submitting the gospels to intense scrutiny, found the testimony of the evangelists to be genuine and reliable. Moreover, the disciples’ commitment to truth and honesty are attested to by their own writings as well as the witness of extra-Biblical history. Thus, their reliability as sources is established beyond any reasonable doubt.