Examine the evidence. Defend the faith.

What survives

More handwritten Greek copies of the New Testament survive than of any other work of ancient literature. They range from complete codices to scraps the size of a credit card, and they come from widely separated places and centuries. Alongside them sit early translations into Latin, Syriac and Coptic, and thousands of quotations of the New Testament in the writings of early Christian teachers.

That spread matters more than the raw count. Copies made in Egypt, Asia Minor and North Africa, by people who could not have coordinated with one another, can be compared against each other. Where they agree, the agreement is not the result of one authority imposing a text; it is what independent lines of transmission look like when they descend from a common ancestor.

What the differences look like

Scholars call a difference between two copies a variant. The overwhelming majority are trivial in exactly the way you would expect from tired human beings working by candlelight: spelling, word order, an article present in one copy and absent in another, a name written out where another copy wrote a pronoun. Greek word order carries far less meaning than English word order, so a great many variants cannot even be rendered as a difference in translation.

A much smaller number affect the sense of a sentence, and a very small number involve whole passages. The best known are the longer ending of Mark and the account of the woman accused of adultery in John. These are not secrets. Open almost any modern study Bible and you will find them marked with a note saying that the earliest manuscripts do not contain them — the disclosure comes from the same scholarship that produced the text.

This is the discipline called textual criticism, and it is not unique to Scripture. It is the ordinary method applied to Homer, Plato and Tacitus. The New Testament simply gives it far more to work with.

Check yourself

Who mentions it

The Roman historian Tacitus, describing Nero's search for someone to blame for the fire at Rome, refers to the group's founder as having been executed under the governor Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus is contemptuous of the movement; he is not offering testimony on its behalf.

Pliny the Younger, governing a province and unsure how to handle Christians brought before him, wrote to the emperor Trajan for instructions. His letter describes what the accused said they did when they met: gathering before dawn and singing to Christ as to a god. Pliny was writing an administrative query, not a defence of the faith.

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for a Roman audience, refers to James as the brother of Jesus in the course of recounting an execution ordered by the high priest. Suetonius records a disturbance among Jews at Rome connected with the movement.

How historians weigh them

These references are short — sometimes a single clause — and they are not eyewitness accounts. Their value lies precisely in their disinterest. Tacitus and Pliny had no motive to establish that a Judean teacher was executed under a particular governor, and every social motive to treat the whole business as a squalid superstition. That they mention it at all, in passing, as a matter of common knowledge, is the kind of incidental corroboration historians prize.

One passage requires care. Josephus has a longer paragraph about Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum, which in its received form contains confessional statements no non-Christian Jewish historian would plausibly have written. Most scholars judge that a shorter original was later expanded by Christian copyists. Honest use of Josephus means acknowledging that, not quoting the expanded version as if the question were settled.

Check yourself

What kind of documents

Luke opens by telling the reader exactly what he is doing: many have undertaken accounts, he has investigated carefully, and he is drawing on those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning (Luke 1:1–4). That is a claim about method, offered up front. It does not prove itself, but it does tell us the genre the author thought he was writing in — an ordered account, not a myth cycle.

The four are not four unrelated reports. Matthew, Mark and Luke share so much material, sometimes word for word, that literary dependence between them is the standard scholarly explanation. This matters for how the evidence may be used: they are not four fully independent witnesses, and an argument that counts them as four will not survive scrutiny.

Agreement, difference, and what each shows

The accounts differ in details — the order of events, how many figures are named at a given scene, the exact wording of a saying. Sceptics have long treated this as fatal. Historians generally do not, because independent testimony to a single event almost always varies at exactly this level, while collusion produces suspiciously smooth agreement. Difference in detail alongside agreement on the substance is the ordinary signature of real testimony.

There is also a class of small, unforced agreements called undesigned coincidences: one account mentions in passing a detail that explains something left unexplained in another, with no sign that either author was tidying up after the other. These are hard to manufacture and easy to overlook. The argument is associated with Tim and Lydia McGrew, who revived it from J. J. Blunt in the nineteenth century — worth knowing, because a student should be able to say whose argument they are using.

Then there are details the writers would have had reason to leave out. All four accounts name women as the first to find the tomb empty, in a setting where women's testimony carried little formal weight. A movement inventing a persuasive story for that audience does not open with witnesses its audience could dismiss. Historians call this the criterion of embarrassment, and it applies elsewhere too — to the disciples' repeated failures to understand, and to Peter's denial, both preserved rather than quietly dropped.

Check yourself

The starting points

The standard version of this approach is the minimal-facts argument developed by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. It works from a short list of items that enjoy wide agreement across the range of scholarship, including scholars with no Christian commitment: Jesus died by crucifixion; his followers had experiences shortly afterwards that they were convinced were encounters with him alive; those followers were transformed from a scattered and frightened group into public proclaimers who accepted serious risk; and at least two people outside the circle of followers — Paul, who had been persecuting the movement, and James, Jesus's own brother — came to believe on the basis of what they took to be such encounters.

The earliest summary of the claim is older than the documents that carry it. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul sets out a compact statement of the death, burial, resurrection and appearances, and says explicitly that he is passing on what he himself received (1 Corinthians 15:3–7). That places the formulation earlier than the letter — within a very short window of the events by ancient standards, and far too early for the slow growth of legend that a sceptical account usually requires.

Weighing the alternatives

The honest form of this argument is comparative, and it requires stating the rivals at their strongest. That the disciples stole the body and knowingly invented the claim: willingness to accept serious risk weighs against a deliberate hoax, although sincerity alone does not establish truth. That someone else moved the body: this could account for an empty tomb without any deception by the disciples. It does not by itself explain the reported appearances, including those that convinced opponents of the movement; a combined explanation must be assessed on its own merits, not dismissed as a hoax. That Jesus survived the crucifixion: this asks a scourged and pierced man to escape sealed burial and then convince his followers he had conquered death rather than narrowly escaped it. That the appearances were hallucinations: individual grief experiences are well documented, but they do not readily explain group experiences, nor the conversion of a hostile persecutor, nor an empty tomb. That the whole story grew as legend: the difficulty is the 1 Corinthians summary, which is too early for that process.

Each alternative accounts for part of the evidence. The historic Christian claim — that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead — accounts for the whole of it, and this section teaches it as the conclusion the evidence best supports.

What a student should take from this is the shape of the reasoning as much as the conclusion: lay out what is agreed, state the rivals fairly, test each against the whole set of facts rather than a convenient subset, and say plainly which one carries the weight.

Check yourself