What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable?
Because Christianity claims to be a historical revelation, says Bruce, the quesion of the reliability of the documents on which it was founded is a crucial one. Here he presents the most convincing evidence for the historical trustworthiness of the canon of the New Testament.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1943
214 people are currently reading
2198 people want to read
About the author
F.F. Bruce
252 books134 followersFrederick Fyvie Bruce FBA was a Biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament. His first book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews
November 3, 2020
I picked this one up on Broadway while at U.T.S. in New York studying the Christian Scriptures. F.F. Bruce was unknown to me. The book was cheap.
I quickly discovered that he was a believing Christian--a contemporary believing Christian. I was used to liberal Christians of one sort or another. My professors were mostly of that kind. But, when it got down to it, none of them seemed to believe in miracles. All of them interpreted away the miracle stories of the bible. Bruce, however, is prone to take the biblical texts at face value, as basically factual source material for religious belief.
Now, in high school I had known many evangelicals. The Campus Crusade For Christ was big at Maine Twp. H. S. South. The local coffee house for adolescents was run by something called Coffee House Ministries. Many of my friends got caught up in the Willow Creek Church during its early years when it still met in a rented movie theatre. On the broader, national scene, the Jesus Freaks made Christianity respectable for many identified with the counterculture and the antiwar movement.
Unfortunately, the local fundamentalists were not very good in presenting evidence or answering questions intelligently. Many of them had read a translation of the bible and knew the material well, but few had much background in the history of the period and none any familiarity with the textual histories of the various canonical texts. I enjoyed discussions with them, felt challenged by their passion, but never felt challenged by their arguments.
Then came Grinnell College and an eventual degree in religious studies followed by matriculation into the seminary my favorite teacher, the Rev. Dr. Dennis Haas, had attended. I was becoming a bit of a biblical scholar myself, expert in the higher and the lower criticism, in the art of putting out a grade A exegesis. But, with the exception of two resident advisors who were evangelicals in an existentialist sort of way (credo ut absurdum), all of my Christian teachers and colleagues were liberals, treating the biblical mss. as they would treat, say, Sumerian ones. Their faith(s) referred to the biblical texts, but weren't much based on them.
Bruce came, therefore, as a revelation. Here was an intelligent master of the biblical material who was disposed to take it seriously as historical record. Here was someone who appeared to give the best possible arguments from the fundamentalist standpoint.
Of course, this means that Bruce is no idiot. He knows that the so-called "Greek New Testament" sold in seminary bookstores, the so-called "received text", is in fact an updated edition of Erasmus' very imperfect work. He knows that the hundreds of English bibles are as new as their copyrights, more or less modern editorial creations, not the inerrant word of god. He knows that all we can do is to try to hypothetically reconstruct original texts and that certainty in such efforts is impossible. Still, he takes this task with the utmost seriousness and has very strong, evidentially based, opinions.
If you are a liberal Christian yourself or otherwise wish to be exposed to an educated evangelical's arguments, check out Bruce's work. If you are an evangelical, hold yourself to his standards.
I quickly discovered that he was a believing Christian--a contemporary believing Christian. I was used to liberal Christians of one sort or another. My professors were mostly of that kind. But, when it got down to it, none of them seemed to believe in miracles. All of them interpreted away the miracle stories of the bible. Bruce, however, is prone to take the biblical texts at face value, as basically factual source material for religious belief.
Now, in high school I had known many evangelicals. The Campus Crusade For Christ was big at Maine Twp. H. S. South. The local coffee house for adolescents was run by something called Coffee House Ministries. Many of my friends got caught up in the Willow Creek Church during its early years when it still met in a rented movie theatre. On the broader, national scene, the Jesus Freaks made Christianity respectable for many identified with the counterculture and the antiwar movement.
Unfortunately, the local fundamentalists were not very good in presenting evidence or answering questions intelligently. Many of them had read a translation of the bible and knew the material well, but few had much background in the history of the period and none any familiarity with the textual histories of the various canonical texts. I enjoyed discussions with them, felt challenged by their passion, but never felt challenged by their arguments.
Then came Grinnell College and an eventual degree in religious studies followed by matriculation into the seminary my favorite teacher, the Rev. Dr. Dennis Haas, had attended. I was becoming a bit of a biblical scholar myself, expert in the higher and the lower criticism, in the art of putting out a grade A exegesis. But, with the exception of two resident advisors who were evangelicals in an existentialist sort of way (credo ut absurdum), all of my Christian teachers and colleagues were liberals, treating the biblical mss. as they would treat, say, Sumerian ones. Their faith(s) referred to the biblical texts, but weren't much based on them.
Bruce came, therefore, as a revelation. Here was an intelligent master of the biblical material who was disposed to take it seriously as historical record. Here was someone who appeared to give the best possible arguments from the fundamentalist standpoint.
Of course, this means that Bruce is no idiot. He knows that the so-called "Greek New Testament" sold in seminary bookstores, the so-called "received text", is in fact an updated edition of Erasmus' very imperfect work. He knows that the hundreds of English bibles are as new as their copyrights, more or less modern editorial creations, not the inerrant word of god. He knows that all we can do is to try to hypothetically reconstruct original texts and that certainty in such efforts is impossible. Still, he takes this task with the utmost seriousness and has very strong, evidentially based, opinions.
If you are a liberal Christian yourself or otherwise wish to be exposed to an educated evangelical's arguments, check out Bruce's work. If you are an evangelical, hold yourself to his standards.
July 21, 2021
3.5 Stars
F.F. Bruce’s “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” is a short scholarly work on the historical reliability of the New Testament. This was Bruce’s first work, and it was ground-breaking whenever it was first written in the early 1940s when evangelicalism was in a crisis of scholarship. The historical reliability and authority of the Bible were being questioned by liberal scholars and this book was one of the first to offer a response. Bruce’s work sought to argue that the historic grounds for accepting the New Testament documents are reliable.
Bruce’s main argument is that the New Testament is primarily a work of divine revelation but also a record of historic fact. These two realities cannot be separated from one another, even though the majority of Bruce’s book emphasizes the historic nature of the New Testament. Throughout his book, F.F. Bruce defends the historic reliability of the New Testament using arguments that many modern evangelicals are familiar with (thanks in part to Bruce). Many of these arguments include the dating of the NT, the development of the canon, the eyewitness testimony of the gospels, the historical and precise nature of Luke’s gospel account, the archeological evidence, and historic documents the support the historicity of the New Testament witness.
Bruce's writing can at times be dry and overly scholarly, but his book is partly successful because of the sheer amount of historic evidence he pours out in defense of the reliability of the New Testament. Yet, I believe his argument is insufficient because of the presuppositions supporting his arguments. I believe that ultimately historical arguments alone cannot support the reliability, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible. And if historical arguments are used alone to prove the Bible’s reliability, then it is those historic arguments and proofs that are authoritative and not the Bible itself. It is the Bible’s “self-authentication” that proves it is reliability, trustworthiness, and authority. Thus, I think the self-authenticating argument (found in books like Piper’s “A Peculiar Glory” and Kruger’s “Canon Revisited”) is far more Biblically faithful and helpful than Bruce’s historic argument.
Thus, I thank F.F. Bruce for his contribution to Christian scholarship and for defending the historic reliability of the Bible. Most of the historic arguments that evangelicals use today to defend the Bible come from Bruce. But in the end, I would say that most Christians can pass on this book – there are more helpful books that use more Biblically faithful arguments to support the reliability of the Bible.
F.F. Bruce’s “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” is a short scholarly work on the historical reliability of the New Testament. This was Bruce’s first work, and it was ground-breaking whenever it was first written in the early 1940s when evangelicalism was in a crisis of scholarship. The historical reliability and authority of the Bible were being questioned by liberal scholars and this book was one of the first to offer a response. Bruce’s work sought to argue that the historic grounds for accepting the New Testament documents are reliable.
Bruce’s main argument is that the New Testament is primarily a work of divine revelation but also a record of historic fact. These two realities cannot be separated from one another, even though the majority of Bruce’s book emphasizes the historic nature of the New Testament. Throughout his book, F.F. Bruce defends the historic reliability of the New Testament using arguments that many modern evangelicals are familiar with (thanks in part to Bruce). Many of these arguments include the dating of the NT, the development of the canon, the eyewitness testimony of the gospels, the historical and precise nature of Luke’s gospel account, the archeological evidence, and historic documents the support the historicity of the New Testament witness.
Bruce's writing can at times be dry and overly scholarly, but his book is partly successful because of the sheer amount of historic evidence he pours out in defense of the reliability of the New Testament. Yet, I believe his argument is insufficient because of the presuppositions supporting his arguments. I believe that ultimately historical arguments alone cannot support the reliability, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible. And if historical arguments are used alone to prove the Bible’s reliability, then it is those historic arguments and proofs that are authoritative and not the Bible itself. It is the Bible’s “self-authentication” that proves it is reliability, trustworthiness, and authority. Thus, I think the self-authenticating argument (found in books like Piper’s “A Peculiar Glory” and Kruger’s “Canon Revisited”) is far more Biblically faithful and helpful than Bruce’s historic argument.
Thus, I thank F.F. Bruce for his contribution to Christian scholarship and for defending the historic reliability of the Bible. Most of the historic arguments that evangelicals use today to defend the Bible come from Bruce. But in the end, I would say that most Christians can pass on this book – there are more helpful books that use more Biblically faithful arguments to support the reliability of the Bible.
December 12, 2013
A highly informative, practically beneficial read. This book is both scholarly and accessible.
January 22, 2013
This is one of those books that I had to purchase in college, but probably did not actually make it to my reading list at the time. A few years ago a pastor was cleaning out his library, and it appeared that he, too, had acquired this in his seminary studies--and that he had then obtained a used copy, dated to when we were preschoolers. Yet I knew it was a classic, so I grabbed it, and read it, and put it in my library.
Picking it up again, I am surprised at how much of the material I failed to recall. I was not surprised at how valuable a resource it is on the evidence for the historicity of the New Testament documents, including all the extant Roman and Jewish references to the reported events, the accuracy of the details, the evidentiary strength of the documents themselves, and more. Much of this I know, and more that has been discovered in the now three-quarters century since the original publication (I was reading the author's 1960 revision, which was not a listed edition at Goodreads).
I can think of half a dozen people, without stopping to consider the question, who ought to read this book; none of them will. Instead, I will keep it available and read it again, to be better able to answer their uninformed objections to the Biblical record which stand as an excuse to avoid considering the claims of Christ.
Picking it up again, I am surprised at how much of the material I failed to recall. I was not surprised at how valuable a resource it is on the evidence for the historicity of the New Testament documents, including all the extant Roman and Jewish references to the reported events, the accuracy of the details, the evidentiary strength of the documents themselves, and more. Much of this I know, and more that has been discovered in the now three-quarters century since the original publication (I was reading the author's 1960 revision, which was not a listed edition at Goodreads).
I can think of half a dozen people, without stopping to consider the question, who ought to read this book; none of them will. Instead, I will keep it available and read it again, to be better able to answer their uninformed objections to the Biblical record which stand as an excuse to avoid considering the claims of Christ.
October 5, 2025
Bruce starts out strong with the first few chapters of this short book focusing on the importance of history within Christianity and plethora of documentary evidence we have for the New Testament. Bruce sets the study of documents within a theology of history; in other words, unlike other world religions that are more essentially didactic, it really matters that Jesus actually lived, died, and rose again. That is the good news the New Testament talks about. Fortunately, then, the New Testament is better documented than any other body of literature in antiquity! In terms of temporal proximity to the events recorded, the inclusion of eyewitness testimony, the integrity of manuscripts even with errors common to textual transmission, the New Testament (and Gospels in particular) are the most certain histories in the ancient world. Classicists would kill to have the evidence for the New Testament for histories of emperors, wars, and so forth. Bruce quips that theologians doubt the New Testament more than a historian would given the evidence.
Bruce gives the largest portion of the book to discussing the gospels. However, he deals less with documentary evidence and more with source criticism, a method that he admits is a method fraught with conjecture. He gives only 4 pages to Paul, and essentially uses Paul’s writing to show that his writing attest to the same events that are described in the Gospels. While this is true the Epistles and the Gospels are consistent in their views of Jesus, there is much that could have been said about Paul’s authenticity. He goes on at length to show how Luke-Acts stands up to historical scrutiny (Luke is a top tier historian in his context).
There are a few other shorter chapters dealing with external evidence of the New Testament, like the Talmud, Josephus, and Gentile writers like Pliny. Bruce notes that many of these serve on the one hand to show a consistent history between other sources and the New Testament, and on the other hand to demonstrate that due to polemical usage, historical distance from events, and philosophical differences (e g the gnostics attested in the Oxyrhynchus papyri), these sources are to be taken with a grain of salt. Bruce does accessibility introduce many of these other writers, ancient figures, and groups.
Bruce gives the largest portion of the book to discussing the gospels. However, he deals less with documentary evidence and more with source criticism, a method that he admits is a method fraught with conjecture. He gives only 4 pages to Paul, and essentially uses Paul’s writing to show that his writing attest to the same events that are described in the Gospels. While this is true the Epistles and the Gospels are consistent in their views of Jesus, there is much that could have been said about Paul’s authenticity. He goes on at length to show how Luke-Acts stands up to historical scrutiny (Luke is a top tier historian in his context).
There are a few other shorter chapters dealing with external evidence of the New Testament, like the Talmud, Josephus, and Gentile writers like Pliny. Bruce notes that many of these serve on the one hand to show a consistent history between other sources and the New Testament, and on the other hand to demonstrate that due to polemical usage, historical distance from events, and philosophical differences (e g the gnostics attested in the Oxyrhynchus papyri), these sources are to be taken with a grain of salt. Bruce does accessibility introduce many of these other writers, ancient figures, and groups.
April 18, 2020
Très facile à lire et facile d'accès. Un bon point d'entrée dans ce domaine même si certaines informations ne sont peut-être pas à jour.
July 19, 2010
Helpful summary of the New Testament's reliability. It is historically consistent with outside documents (Josephus tells the same story we find in Acts 12:20-23, for instance). Even where other writings are hostile or indifferent to Christianity, they do not refute the NT's claims. Bruce examines why some books weren't included in Scripture and others were disputed. He considers the Gospel differences helpfully, and Paul and Luke's Acts, also. He shows there are far more NT texts closer to the original writing than we have for most other major works (Caesar, Socrates, etc.), the historicity of which we do not question.
All this in 120 pages! Highly recommended, especially for seminary students and any Christian who is struggling with doubts about the faith once delivered to the saints.
All this in 120 pages! Highly recommended, especially for seminary students and any Christian who is struggling with doubts about the faith once delivered to the saints.
November 10, 2017
Helpful in many respects, especially when he sticks to the facts. I really loved the chapter on miracles. His adherence to the speculations about Markan Priority and Q are disappointing due to the paucity of actual evidence cited and are incongruous with most of the rest of this well-researched book.
Specifically, he should have followed his own advice in the final footnote of chapter 2: "The latest exhaustive enquiry into the dates of the New Testament books -- Redating the New Testament by J. A. T. Robinson (1976) -- argues that everything in the New Testament was written before AD 70, the latest book being Revelation, which he dates preferably under Galba (June 68-January 69). The pivot of his case is the Gospel of John, to the final form of which he gives a date no later than AD 65. I should not go all the way with some of his early dating, for I believe that one or two of the New Testament documents do imply that the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) had already taken place. But Dr. Robinson's case is so well researched and closely reasoned that no one from now on should deal with this question of dating without paying the most serious attention to his arguments."
Not once does Bruce follow this advice.
Specifically, he should have followed his own advice in the final footnote of chapter 2: "The latest exhaustive enquiry into the dates of the New Testament books -- Redating the New Testament by J. A. T. Robinson (1976) -- argues that everything in the New Testament was written before AD 70, the latest book being Revelation, which he dates preferably under Galba (June 68-January 69). The pivot of his case is the Gospel of John, to the final form of which he gives a date no later than AD 65. I should not go all the way with some of his early dating, for I believe that one or two of the New Testament documents do imply that the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) had already taken place. But Dr. Robinson's case is so well researched and closely reasoned that no one from now on should deal with this question of dating without paying the most serious attention to his arguments."
Not once does Bruce follow this advice.
January 2, 2021
Surprisingly thorough and academic, this fairly small volume clearly establishes the historical credibility of the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ.
Another serious work that sceptics and atheists would prefer not to even acknowledge.
Bruce does favour Markan priority and the Q-hypothesis more than I would like, but I think he’s trying mainly to engage with the majority academic opinion rather than setting out that we should necessarily agree with those views.
Another serious work that sceptics and atheists would prefer not to even acknowledge.
Bruce does favour Markan priority and the Q-hypothesis more than I would like, but I think he’s trying mainly to engage with the majority academic opinion rather than setting out that we should necessarily agree with those views.
August 29, 2021
A really great baseline read for entering into Text Criticism and for discussing NT reliability. The end felt a little anti-climactic but FF Bruce has written a wonderful book that, with its updated since the 1940s is still an enjoyable and relevant read.
May 25, 2022
Informative and enjoyable overview of the many fields of evidence which prove the reliability of the NT. Answers many questions in regard to NT document origins that modern apologists still face (particularly on the Gospels, which is the longest chapter). The section on parallels between Luke-Acts and Josephus' writings was also very interesting.
Given its age (originally published in the 1940s), many of the references are quite dated, and so unfortunately it is difficult to find some of Bruce's sources in order to follow his research. Also, I wish he had given a bit more detail on why he dates the Gospels as he does.
Given its age (originally published in the 1940s), many of the references are quite dated, and so unfortunately it is difficult to find some of Bruce's sources in order to follow his research. Also, I wish he had given a bit more detail on why he dates the Gospels as he does.
December 10, 2023
Are they reliable? Yes.
June 20, 2024
A short, but pleasantly full little book.
I was mistaken when I picked up this book. I presumed that it was about textual criticism. In fact, textual issues are presented only briefly at the start, as well as matters of authenticiy and the new testament canon.
The bulk of the book is actually concerned with historical reliablity. While I was familiar with most of the material already, I still found it's presentation refreshing and an enjoyable read. Bruce covers a lot in a short space. He gives lots of references, although many of these are now quite dated.
I especailly appreciated Bruce's introduction to the "synoptic problem" of the first three gospels, and his explanation certainly seems compelling (though I admit I haven't considered this issue in much detail).
I also appreciated Bruce's discussion of Josephus and the problem of Christian interpolation.
The one negative I have is that the chapter on miracles feels a bit out of place in this book. I didn't understand how the discussion in this chapter contributed to answer the book's question of the reliablility of the documents. The chapter was good and helpful on its own, but it felt too tangential. As always, the fault could well be with the reader than the author.
I was mistaken when I picked up this book. I presumed that it was about textual criticism. In fact, textual issues are presented only briefly at the start, as well as matters of authenticiy and the new testament canon.
The bulk of the book is actually concerned with historical reliablity. While I was familiar with most of the material already, I still found it's presentation refreshing and an enjoyable read. Bruce covers a lot in a short space. He gives lots of references, although many of these are now quite dated.
I especailly appreciated Bruce's introduction to the "synoptic problem" of the first three gospels, and his explanation certainly seems compelling (though I admit I haven't considered this issue in much detail).
I also appreciated Bruce's discussion of Josephus and the problem of Christian interpolation.
The one negative I have is that the chapter on miracles feels a bit out of place in this book. I didn't understand how the discussion in this chapter contributed to answer the book's question of the reliablility of the documents. The chapter was good and helpful on its own, but it felt too tangential. As always, the fault could well be with the reader than the author.
January 20, 2025
Excellent.
August 9, 2025
Concise overview of what is known about the origin of NT documents and the ways they are corroborated in other ancient sources.
March 18, 2022
Yes, we can trust the New Testament. F F Bruce, is he reliable? Yes! The New Testament we have printed in our Bibles, does indeed go back to what the early Christians wrote. - NT Wright
This is a phenomenal read. This is F F Bruce’s first published book. It was published in 1943. I would highly recommend it to be included in every Christian’s library. The book ends with this sentence, “ The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asked them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theohilus, will know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.”
Some of the evidence that F. F. Bruce reviews are, the Gospels, the Gospel Miracles, the importance of Paul’s evidence, the writings of Luke, Archeological evidence, evidence of early Jewish writings, evidence of early Gentile writers. You cannot close this book and not know in Whom you have believed.
This is a phenomenal read. This is F F Bruce’s first published book. It was published in 1943. I would highly recommend it to be included in every Christian’s library. The book ends with this sentence, “ The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asked them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theohilus, will know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.”
Some of the evidence that F. F. Bruce reviews are, the Gospels, the Gospel Miracles, the importance of Paul’s evidence, the writings of Luke, Archeological evidence, evidence of early Jewish writings, evidence of early Gentile writers. You cannot close this book and not know in Whom you have believed.
October 10, 2010
F.F. Bruce is widely known as a brilliant scholar and lovable author. This, his "literary firstborn" (p. xiii), is a terrific resource on showing the manifold evidence of the historical reliability of the New Testament documents, both regarding their date of composition as held by tradition and their original content as discerned by literary criticism.
It is compelling in all regards, and is highly recommended for those wanting to know more about how our New Testament manuscripts compare to other documents of antiquity. One of my greatest enjoyments from this book is seeing Bruce commentate on various passages of Scripture throughout.
May our Lord bless you in your studies!
It is compelling in all regards, and is highly recommended for those wanting to know more about how our New Testament manuscripts compare to other documents of antiquity. One of my greatest enjoyments from this book is seeing Bruce commentate on various passages of Scripture throughout.
May our Lord bless you in your studies!
February 10, 2019
“Faith is believing what you know ain’t so,” Mark Twain has one of his school-aged characters say, with classic Mark Twain wryness.
In The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable, F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) begs to differ. Bruce is convinced of the historicity (historical authenticity) of Jesus Christ. The good news of Jesus is “intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered history, the eternal came into time.”
Of course faith is still necessary for belief in Jesus, just as faith is necessary to believe that our five senses are not playing tricks on us. Yet just as there is good reason to believe our eyes are seeing what we perceive them to be seeing, so also a mountain of overwhelming evidence exists for the historicity of Jesus Christ as He is portrayed in the New Testament.
F. F. Bruce’s book, first published in 1943 but with numerous editions and translations following, distilled that evidence into just 124 pages. Sir Francis Bacon once said, “Some books are to be tasted, others swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.” The New Testament Documents is certainly one that falls into the latter category: every follower of Christ should read and reread it and absorb its message. An assurance of Jesus’ historicity is especially important in today’s spate of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Yuval Noah Harari, or the “New Atheist Crusaders,” as Becky Garrison has called them.
Bruce’s style is both winsomely humble and intellectually satisfying as he delves into the objections scholars have raised pertaining to the historicity of the New Testament. As with any controversial subject, writers can take any of three positions: 1) ignore the objections; 2) address the objections but with simplistic, unsatisfactory answers; or 3) tackle the objections head-on with humble but viable solutions. F.F. Bruce definitely fits the last description.
One of Bruce’s strong arguments is the abundance of early Greek manuscripts of New Testament writings—over 5000 since AD 350 as well as some papyrus fragments dating considerably earlier. This may not be so impressive for the uninformed layperson; would it not be more convincing if there would be more manuscripts from the time of the apostles? Not in the world of historical documents, it turns out. Consider the example Bruce gives of Caesar’s Gallic War. Though historians unanimously agree on the historicity of Gallic War, there are only ten extant manuscripts, the earliest of which is dated 900 years after the war took place!
“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for the writings of many classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning,” writes Bruce. If there were, for a secular history, as many manuscripts and from as early a time period as there are for the New Testament, historians would seal the document’s authenticity forever.
Granted, the New Testament’s claims have far greater implications than does Caesar’s Gallic Wars. God, incarnate as a human in real time and space, rose from the dead and promised that all His followers could anticipate the same. And as all seasoned believers know, receiving this message requires more than a knowledge of the historical data. “A historian many conclude that these things probably did happen and yet be quite far from the response which the recorder of these events wished to evoke,” wrote Bruce. Or, as 1 Corinthians 2:14 puts it: “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.” However, when people open their minds to the evidence, they find it to be there in abundance.
Bruce uses three main categories to present that evidence: first, the New Testament’s geography matches other sources and is consistent throughout the texts; second, the New Testament’s dignitaries and events match those described in contemporary histories. Bruce even tackles, quite thoroughly, the seemingly anachronistic census in Luke’s Gospel; and third, other writers, including both Jewish writers like Josephus and Gentiles like Suetonius, bear witness to the events of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. It is interesting here that no first century writers deny the miracles of Jesus. Some attribute them to sorcery but no one denies them.
Was not human agency involved in the writing of the New Testament, someone may ask. Yes, and Bruce does not deny that. He does not appear to hold the verbal plenary inerrancy view held by some recent fundamentalist Christians. Rather, his intent is to make a case for a vibrant historical Jesus, an actual resurrection, and the flaming of an eternal Kingdom that found its spark in a real place, real time, and among real people. The accuracy with which the framework of these events is recorded in the New Testament is more than sufficient.
This review is based on the 1981 sixth edition, Eerdman’s Publishing, of which used copies can be purchased from online booksellers for under seven dollars, including shipping. The New Testament Documents will be a sound investment for readers from all walks of life, but especially those who have been frustrated with a limited, layman’s knowledge of the facts surrounding the historical Jesus.
Like the earliest Christians, we must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3, NKJV). Like them, we must not shrink from welcoming any challenge to the historicity of our message of Jesus’ newly-established kingdom and of the resurrection to come, knowing it is as deserving of our faith as anything in the world.
In The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable, F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) begs to differ. Bruce is convinced of the historicity (historical authenticity) of Jesus Christ. The good news of Jesus is “intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered history, the eternal came into time.”
Of course faith is still necessary for belief in Jesus, just as faith is necessary to believe that our five senses are not playing tricks on us. Yet just as there is good reason to believe our eyes are seeing what we perceive them to be seeing, so also a mountain of overwhelming evidence exists for the historicity of Jesus Christ as He is portrayed in the New Testament.
F. F. Bruce’s book, first published in 1943 but with numerous editions and translations following, distilled that evidence into just 124 pages. Sir Francis Bacon once said, “Some books are to be tasted, others swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.” The New Testament Documents is certainly one that falls into the latter category: every follower of Christ should read and reread it and absorb its message. An assurance of Jesus’ historicity is especially important in today’s spate of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Yuval Noah Harari, or the “New Atheist Crusaders,” as Becky Garrison has called them.
Bruce’s style is both winsomely humble and intellectually satisfying as he delves into the objections scholars have raised pertaining to the historicity of the New Testament. As with any controversial subject, writers can take any of three positions: 1) ignore the objections; 2) address the objections but with simplistic, unsatisfactory answers; or 3) tackle the objections head-on with humble but viable solutions. F.F. Bruce definitely fits the last description.
One of Bruce’s strong arguments is the abundance of early Greek manuscripts of New Testament writings—over 5000 since AD 350 as well as some papyrus fragments dating considerably earlier. This may not be so impressive for the uninformed layperson; would it not be more convincing if there would be more manuscripts from the time of the apostles? Not in the world of historical documents, it turns out. Consider the example Bruce gives of Caesar’s Gallic War. Though historians unanimously agree on the historicity of Gallic War, there are only ten extant manuscripts, the earliest of which is dated 900 years after the war took place!
“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for the writings of many classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning,” writes Bruce. If there were, for a secular history, as many manuscripts and from as early a time period as there are for the New Testament, historians would seal the document’s authenticity forever.
Granted, the New Testament’s claims have far greater implications than does Caesar’s Gallic Wars. God, incarnate as a human in real time and space, rose from the dead and promised that all His followers could anticipate the same. And as all seasoned believers know, receiving this message requires more than a knowledge of the historical data. “A historian many conclude that these things probably did happen and yet be quite far from the response which the recorder of these events wished to evoke,” wrote Bruce. Or, as 1 Corinthians 2:14 puts it: “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.” However, when people open their minds to the evidence, they find it to be there in abundance.
Bruce uses three main categories to present that evidence: first, the New Testament’s geography matches other sources and is consistent throughout the texts; second, the New Testament’s dignitaries and events match those described in contemporary histories. Bruce even tackles, quite thoroughly, the seemingly anachronistic census in Luke’s Gospel; and third, other writers, including both Jewish writers like Josephus and Gentiles like Suetonius, bear witness to the events of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. It is interesting here that no first century writers deny the miracles of Jesus. Some attribute them to sorcery but no one denies them.
Was not human agency involved in the writing of the New Testament, someone may ask. Yes, and Bruce does not deny that. He does not appear to hold the verbal plenary inerrancy view held by some recent fundamentalist Christians. Rather, his intent is to make a case for a vibrant historical Jesus, an actual resurrection, and the flaming of an eternal Kingdom that found its spark in a real place, real time, and among real people. The accuracy with which the framework of these events is recorded in the New Testament is more than sufficient.
This review is based on the 1981 sixth edition, Eerdman’s Publishing, of which used copies can be purchased from online booksellers for under seven dollars, including shipping. The New Testament Documents will be a sound investment for readers from all walks of life, but especially those who have been frustrated with a limited, layman’s knowledge of the facts surrounding the historical Jesus.
Like the earliest Christians, we must “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3, NKJV). Like them, we must not shrink from welcoming any challenge to the historicity of our message of Jesus’ newly-established kingdom and of the resurrection to come, knowing it is as deserving of our faith as anything in the world.
June 20, 2017
The New Testament documents; Are they reliable?
Author: F. F. Bruce
Pages: 431
ISBN: 9780851115252
The late F. F. Bruce was Emeritus Professor, University of Manchester. He was a Biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals"
Bruce does a great job of doing just as he argues, “if a work can be proven to be historically and culturally accurate with respect to most of its content, that document then becomes-on the whole-more compelling.”
The author makes his cases about why he thinks the New Testament documents are reliable.
This book is divided into following ten chapters:
First Chapter, Does it matter?
Is it essential that the New Testament documents should be reliable? Christianity it's not only about morals, ethics or metaphysics but about good news as well.
Second Chapter, the New Testament documents; In regard to their dating, the author declares that the New Testament was almost complete about 100 AD with the majority of documents being in existence 20-40 years before this. Author meant that the things that Jesus said and did were still around when the books were documented and some might have been alive even when the fourth gospel was written. Like Papyrus fragments, Papyrus Codex dated no later than 150 AD. The author gives many more examples in this chapter the author points out the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament and if we compare it to other historical writings of which no historian would ever doubt their authenticity. Third Chapter, The Canon of the New Testament; How was decided which books would make the cannon? The author also points out that there was a dispute about which books were recognized and how some people did not recognize certain books. At the end, the books that were recognized were those who were common among the Christian communities and also those books who were recognized by the Church which were pretty much the same that were going around.
Fourth Chapter, The Gospels; Author has divided into two sections; the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. The author wisely deals with the controversies, hypothesis, and many other things. Ones like, the claim that Luke and Matthew copied from Mark.
Fifth Chapter, The gospel of Miracles; Here, author argues in support of miracle narratives. He puts forward some of the arguments from people who have tried to reduce the miracles in a non supernatural way. For, instance, empty tomb, not all the disciples could have had the same hallucination, Jesus appearance, Paul's testimony.
Sixth Chapter, the Importance of Paul's evidence; As a response to many who argue that Paul doesn't talk about Jesus, his life and ministry. So the author talks about his background, life and conversion, Christ like life, Luke’s work, familiarity, with other Christians etc.
Seventh Chapter, Writings of Luke; Here, author deals with the authority and historicity of Luke’s writings and his personhood.
Eighth Chapter, More Archaeological Evidence. Ninth Chapter, The Evidence of Early Jewish Writers; Here, author gives good details about some of the Jewish writer who documented about Jesus. (Talmud, Josephus etc.).
Tenth Chapter, The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers; Now Bruce talks about gentile writers, Julius Africanus who refers to the writings of Thallus who wrote about the darkness that covered the land when Jesus was crucified. Some others also included in support.
In summary, Bruce puts it “He asks why the reliability and historicity of the New Testament documents are important. His answer is that the Christian faith is grounded in history and facts. Without a history or without the underlying facts, Christianity is not really Christianity.”
Bruce provides internal and external data that point to the historical reliability of the NT. Perhaps most notable is the fact that Bruce does not try to convince his readers that Christianity is true; that is not his objective. It is only his endeavor to demonstrate that the NT documents, which themselves declare Christianity's truth claims, are as historically reliable as any documents of antiquity. Indeed, this book is an extraordinary channel for any person, Christian or skeptic, who would like to comprehend the point of historical accuracy that can be found in the New Testament documents. Any historian would then need to take more critically the author's questionable claims such as the miracles, and Christ as God and savior of humanity. Bruce's work is an undeniable read for anybody interested in this topic.
I would like to strongly recommend this read for couple of reasons; first it will be a great help to understand the historical roots of Christian faith that lies in the New Testament. Second, non-Christians who believe that the Bible is mere religious myth, this book will change their concept completely. Third, this can be taken as a great tool on the New Testament for the apologetical study, since it has enormous information that aids in verifying the reliability and credibility of the New Testament.
Source: http://nikhilrajgupta.blogspot.in/201...
Author: F. F. Bruce
Pages: 431
ISBN: 9780851115252
The late F. F. Bruce was Emeritus Professor, University of Manchester. He was a Biblical scholar who supported the historical reliability of the New Testament. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals"
Bruce does a great job of doing just as he argues, “if a work can be proven to be historically and culturally accurate with respect to most of its content, that document then becomes-on the whole-more compelling.”
The author makes his cases about why he thinks the New Testament documents are reliable.
This book is divided into following ten chapters:
First Chapter, Does it matter?
Is it essential that the New Testament documents should be reliable? Christianity it's not only about morals, ethics or metaphysics but about good news as well.
Second Chapter, the New Testament documents; In regard to their dating, the author declares that the New Testament was almost complete about 100 AD with the majority of documents being in existence 20-40 years before this. Author meant that the things that Jesus said and did were still around when the books were documented and some might have been alive even when the fourth gospel was written. Like Papyrus fragments, Papyrus Codex dated no later than 150 AD. The author gives many more examples in this chapter the author points out the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament and if we compare it to other historical writings of which no historian would ever doubt their authenticity. Third Chapter, The Canon of the New Testament; How was decided which books would make the cannon? The author also points out that there was a dispute about which books were recognized and how some people did not recognize certain books. At the end, the books that were recognized were those who were common among the Christian communities and also those books who were recognized by the Church which were pretty much the same that were going around.
Fourth Chapter, The Gospels; Author has divided into two sections; the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. The author wisely deals with the controversies, hypothesis, and many other things. Ones like, the claim that Luke and Matthew copied from Mark.
Fifth Chapter, The gospel of Miracles; Here, author argues in support of miracle narratives. He puts forward some of the arguments from people who have tried to reduce the miracles in a non supernatural way. For, instance, empty tomb, not all the disciples could have had the same hallucination, Jesus appearance, Paul's testimony.
Sixth Chapter, the Importance of Paul's evidence; As a response to many who argue that Paul doesn't talk about Jesus, his life and ministry. So the author talks about his background, life and conversion, Christ like life, Luke’s work, familiarity, with other Christians etc.
Seventh Chapter, Writings of Luke; Here, author deals with the authority and historicity of Luke’s writings and his personhood.
Eighth Chapter, More Archaeological Evidence. Ninth Chapter, The Evidence of Early Jewish Writers; Here, author gives good details about some of the Jewish writer who documented about Jesus. (Talmud, Josephus etc.).
Tenth Chapter, The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers; Now Bruce talks about gentile writers, Julius Africanus who refers to the writings of Thallus who wrote about the darkness that covered the land when Jesus was crucified. Some others also included in support.
In summary, Bruce puts it “He asks why the reliability and historicity of the New Testament documents are important. His answer is that the Christian faith is grounded in history and facts. Without a history or without the underlying facts, Christianity is not really Christianity.”
Bruce provides internal and external data that point to the historical reliability of the NT. Perhaps most notable is the fact that Bruce does not try to convince his readers that Christianity is true; that is not his objective. It is only his endeavor to demonstrate that the NT documents, which themselves declare Christianity's truth claims, are as historically reliable as any documents of antiquity. Indeed, this book is an extraordinary channel for any person, Christian or skeptic, who would like to comprehend the point of historical accuracy that can be found in the New Testament documents. Any historian would then need to take more critically the author's questionable claims such as the miracles, and Christ as God and savior of humanity. Bruce's work is an undeniable read for anybody interested in this topic.
I would like to strongly recommend this read for couple of reasons; first it will be a great help to understand the historical roots of Christian faith that lies in the New Testament. Second, non-Christians who believe that the Bible is mere religious myth, this book will change their concept completely. Third, this can be taken as a great tool on the New Testament for the apologetical study, since it has enormous information that aids in verifying the reliability and credibility of the New Testament.
Source: http://nikhilrajgupta.blogspot.in/201...
June 4, 2009
Excellent.
November 26, 2012
Measured and convincing.
June 20, 2013
A bit dated but still very relevant. Great entry level introduction to New Testament and Christian origins. Lots of helpful info backed up with solid scholarship.
February 8, 2018
F.F. Bruce was a man of deep personal faith (himself a Brethren) while simultaneously being a foremost scholar in his own field. Often, it is assumed that these two traits are mutually exclusive, but in this book, Bruce proves that you can be both.
The main question Bruce attempts to answer in this book is captured within the book's own title: are the New Testament Documents reliable? Being himself a Christian, one might expect Bruce to answer "yes." That said, this "yes" does not come without a rigorous treatment of the relevant material that might lead one to such a conclusion.
Bruce starts with a bit of prolegomena, arguing that the question he's attempting to answer is actually a question that can be asked. It can be asked because the Gospel is good news within history. The New Testaments are a witness to the Christ-event that breaks into our world's sequence of events. As Bruce claims, "And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ" (2). Checking for the historical accuracy of the New Testaments is a task worth undertaking given this reality of the historical nature of Christianity.
Bruce starts by defining what the New Testament documents are and then proceeds to date these documents. Dates are an important factor in regards to their trustworthiness, much like any other ancient documents one might scrutinize. Bruce then states the massive collection of manuscripts available to us in the Greek. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae are also mentioned. With such a wealth of textual support for the New Testament, it seems almost superfluous to mention the independent testimony of the early church fathers and their heavy citation, adding further support (just to be clear, Bruce does mention this point).
Throughout his book, Bruce anticipates questions that might obstruct our ability to answer his original question about the reliability of the New Testament. This explains the purpose of his third chapter, which addresses the canon of scripture. "Sure, the New Testament is reliable," one might say, "but why is the New Testament the way it is anyways?" This is a fair question, to which Bruce gives an honest answer. He notes the existence of material on the edges of the proto-canon such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.
In chapter four, Bruce addresses what some have called "the synoptic problem" and then proceeds to discuss the noticeable differences between the synoptics and John's gospel.
In his fifth chapter on miracles, Bruce is helpful when he says that "our first concern about the Gospel miracles should be not to 'defend' them but to understand them" (62). That being said, Bruce does not back down from the historicity of these miracles. In fact, Bruce focuses our attention towards Jesus' own resurrection, calling it the "chief Gospel miracle of all" (63).
In his sixth chapter, Paul's testimony is discussed with an emphasis on his importance in speaking of the New Testament's reliability. His letters are, by far, the earliest of our New Testament documents and it is assuring to know that "the gospel story as we can trace it in the writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular" (79).
In his seventh chapter, Bruce concludes that Luke's testimony is deemed reliable by scholars coming from a liberal point of view.
In the final three chapters, Bruce discusses archaeological evidence and then finishes with a discussion of outside Jewish and Gentile sources that speak of the Jesus movement. Essentially, Bruce is answering the question of what the outside world can tell us about the reliability of the New Testament. Josephus is easily the most important external Jewish source in this regard.
Personally, I find it fascinating that Josephus was aware of persons such as John the Baptist, and even takes the time to recount the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church. Less important are the external Gentiles sources that reference Jesus or his movement. That being said, the information we gather from these brief mentions of Jesus seem crucial for Bruce, leading him to make the following bold statement: "the historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (123).
In conclusion, Bruce's book is well worth your time. You can sense both Bruce's personal faith and his excitement over exploring and discussing the relevant scholarship. I am sure that after reading his book, Bruce would have hoped his readers would have gained a renewed and energetic willingness to go out and read the New Testament again for themselves. To be sure, Bruce accomplishes this. Read this book.
The main question Bruce attempts to answer in this book is captured within the book's own title: are the New Testament Documents reliable? Being himself a Christian, one might expect Bruce to answer "yes." That said, this "yes" does not come without a rigorous treatment of the relevant material that might lead one to such a conclusion.
Bruce starts with a bit of prolegomena, arguing that the question he's attempting to answer is actually a question that can be asked. It can be asked because the Gospel is good news within history. The New Testaments are a witness to the Christ-event that breaks into our world's sequence of events. As Bruce claims, "And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world's redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ" (2). Checking for the historical accuracy of the New Testaments is a task worth undertaking given this reality of the historical nature of Christianity.
Bruce starts by defining what the New Testament documents are and then proceeds to date these documents. Dates are an important factor in regards to their trustworthiness, much like any other ancient documents one might scrutinize. Bruce then states the massive collection of manuscripts available to us in the Greek. Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Bezae are also mentioned. With such a wealth of textual support for the New Testament, it seems almost superfluous to mention the independent testimony of the early church fathers and their heavy citation, adding further support (just to be clear, Bruce does mention this point).
Throughout his book, Bruce anticipates questions that might obstruct our ability to answer his original question about the reliability of the New Testament. This explains the purpose of his third chapter, which addresses the canon of scripture. "Sure, the New Testament is reliable," one might say, "but why is the New Testament the way it is anyways?" This is a fair question, to which Bruce gives an honest answer. He notes the existence of material on the edges of the proto-canon such as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas.
In chapter four, Bruce addresses what some have called "the synoptic problem" and then proceeds to discuss the noticeable differences between the synoptics and John's gospel.
In his fifth chapter on miracles, Bruce is helpful when he says that "our first concern about the Gospel miracles should be not to 'defend' them but to understand them" (62). That being said, Bruce does not back down from the historicity of these miracles. In fact, Bruce focuses our attention towards Jesus' own resurrection, calling it the "chief Gospel miracle of all" (63).
In his sixth chapter, Paul's testimony is discussed with an emphasis on his importance in speaking of the New Testament's reliability. His letters are, by far, the earliest of our New Testament documents and it is assuring to know that "the gospel story as we can trace it in the writings of Paul agrees with the outline which we find elsewhere in the New Testament, and in the four Gospels in particular" (79).
In his seventh chapter, Bruce concludes that Luke's testimony is deemed reliable by scholars coming from a liberal point of view.
In the final three chapters, Bruce discusses archaeological evidence and then finishes with a discussion of outside Jewish and Gentile sources that speak of the Jesus movement. Essentially, Bruce is answering the question of what the outside world can tell us about the reliability of the New Testament. Josephus is easily the most important external Jewish source in this regard.
Personally, I find it fascinating that Josephus was aware of persons such as John the Baptist, and even takes the time to recount the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church. Less important are the external Gentiles sources that reference Jesus or his movement. That being said, the information we gather from these brief mentions of Jesus seem crucial for Bruce, leading him to make the following bold statement: "the historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (123).
In conclusion, Bruce's book is well worth your time. You can sense both Bruce's personal faith and his excitement over exploring and discussing the relevant scholarship. I am sure that after reading his book, Bruce would have hoped his readers would have gained a renewed and energetic willingness to go out and read the New Testament again for themselves. To be sure, Bruce accomplishes this. Read this book.
April 7, 2025
Short, dense, and surprisingly readable, F.F. Bruce’s classic is an excellent overview and handy reference for all things related to the historicity and reliability of the New Testament documents.
The first two chapters establish the importance of historical reliability (Christianity is a historical religion, not just a collection of valuable insights) and establish fairly conservative dates for the New Testament documents (complete or nearly so before AD 100). These sections are maybe too concise. Although Bruce mentions a few of the factors that help historians date these documents (like the documents’ treatment or non-treatment of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem), the basic thrust is one of, “Most scholars give these dates, and I tend to mostly agree.” Bruce also errs heavily on the late side of dating, possibly in an effort to be brief and avoid having to substantiate earlier dates, or possibly in an effort to avoid being accused of bias in favor of Christianity. The main point stands (even conceding a date as late as 90-100 for John and 65 for Mark, all the gospels were still written at a time when people who knew Jesus were still alive). However, I would have appreciated a little more discussion on this important topic, especially on the common and convincing argument that all the gospels were written before 70AD.
The third chapter covers a brief history of the ‘canonization’ of the New Testament documents, and it is both honest (“it is not quite accurate to say that there has never been any doubt in the church of any of our New Testament books”) and practical (“[they] did not become authoritative… because they were formally included in a canonical list… [but included the because the church] already regarded them as divinely inspired.”
The fourth chapter is especially dense and covers various theories on potential source documents and order of composition, operating under the assumption that the authors received no divine help in gathering their facts. It is a chapter that could easily be skipped without losing much of the book’s value.
Chapter Five makes some excellent points about miracles, the historian’s tendency to reject anything supernatural a priori, and especially that it is “beside the point to demonstrate how as a matter of fact many of those miracles are in the light of modern science not so ‘impossible’ after all.” This chapter is especially worth reading for discussion of many such attempts to explain away miracles.
Chapters Six and Seven discuss historical and contextual accuracies of Paul and Luke’s writing in particular. While brief, they are packed with useful information and add to the overall picture.
The last three chapters cover in succinct but well-referenced detail many of the points made in various Apologetics and Christian Evidence books I’ve read, including corroboration of the New Testament documents through archeological findings and the writings of both Jewish and Gentile non-Christians contemporary with the early Christians. There were too many nuggets in these chapters to highlight; they are a treasure chest full of information that is difficult to read without feeling that the Christ Myth theory or idea that the New Testament documents were distorted centuries later are patently false from a historical perspective.
Although it was written during WWII and still has the tone of an older and more academic time, this book has made it to a Sixth Edition for a reason, and from my perspective (as an amateur enthusiast in Christian Apologetics), it seems to be up to date with solid references and much of the latest archeological and historical evidence. My only complaint is that it sometimes errs on the side of timidity in its truth claims, but of course this is vastly preferable to erring on the side of over-confident dogmatism.
The first two chapters establish the importance of historical reliability (Christianity is a historical religion, not just a collection of valuable insights) and establish fairly conservative dates for the New Testament documents (complete or nearly so before AD 100). These sections are maybe too concise. Although Bruce mentions a few of the factors that help historians date these documents (like the documents’ treatment or non-treatment of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem), the basic thrust is one of, “Most scholars give these dates, and I tend to mostly agree.” Bruce also errs heavily on the late side of dating, possibly in an effort to be brief and avoid having to substantiate earlier dates, or possibly in an effort to avoid being accused of bias in favor of Christianity. The main point stands (even conceding a date as late as 90-100 for John and 65 for Mark, all the gospels were still written at a time when people who knew Jesus were still alive). However, I would have appreciated a little more discussion on this important topic, especially on the common and convincing argument that all the gospels were written before 70AD.
The third chapter covers a brief history of the ‘canonization’ of the New Testament documents, and it is both honest (“it is not quite accurate to say that there has never been any doubt in the church of any of our New Testament books”) and practical (“[they] did not become authoritative… because they were formally included in a canonical list… [but included the because the church] already regarded them as divinely inspired.”
The fourth chapter is especially dense and covers various theories on potential source documents and order of composition, operating under the assumption that the authors received no divine help in gathering their facts. It is a chapter that could easily be skipped without losing much of the book’s value.
Chapter Five makes some excellent points about miracles, the historian’s tendency to reject anything supernatural a priori, and especially that it is “beside the point to demonstrate how as a matter of fact many of those miracles are in the light of modern science not so ‘impossible’ after all.” This chapter is especially worth reading for discussion of many such attempts to explain away miracles.
Chapters Six and Seven discuss historical and contextual accuracies of Paul and Luke’s writing in particular. While brief, they are packed with useful information and add to the overall picture.
The last three chapters cover in succinct but well-referenced detail many of the points made in various Apologetics and Christian Evidence books I’ve read, including corroboration of the New Testament documents through archeological findings and the writings of both Jewish and Gentile non-Christians contemporary with the early Christians. There were too many nuggets in these chapters to highlight; they are a treasure chest full of information that is difficult to read without feeling that the Christ Myth theory or idea that the New Testament documents were distorted centuries later are patently false from a historical perspective.
Although it was written during WWII and still has the tone of an older and more academic time, this book has made it to a Sixth Edition for a reason, and from my perspective (as an amateur enthusiast in Christian Apologetics), it seems to be up to date with solid references and much of the latest archeological and historical evidence. My only complaint is that it sometimes errs on the side of timidity in its truth claims, but of course this is vastly preferable to erring on the side of over-confident dogmatism.
September 26, 2023
I didn't read the entire book, maybe half of it. I found the information I needed and then moved on. (5,000 Historical Manuscripts remain, full manuscripts dated to within 100-200 years, fragments and sections dated to within the first century. More reliability than ANY other piece of historical writing . . . by far.)
I find F.F. Bruce to be incredibly difficult to read. Technical and dense; incredibly hard to understand with run on sentences and overlapping ideas that don't always mesh well.
The information is absolutely brilliant. Absolutely. Brilliant. It is everything you want to know about the reliability of the Bible, you just have to decipher this writing to find it.
At one point, it seems like he is arguing the infallibility of the original manuscripts. At one point is seems like he he arguing the sufficiency of scripture. I don't see those to be the case, but his writing is so difficult to understand.
He even suggests that Matthew and Luke were written after the sacking of Jerusalem. An interesting idea, and he doesn't explain his position, but I'm not sure how he is gathering that from the text. If we abide by Sola Scriptura, Paul is still alive at the end of Acts, and there is no indication that Jerusalem has been destroyed or that more than one million Jews have lost their lives.
If we seek outside sources, Paul is traditionally said to have been killed in 64, and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70, Luke ends somewhat ambiguously and may imply that Paul is dead, but I see no evidence in any of the Bible that Jerusalem had been sacked (maybe Revelation, but that is a category to itself).
I find F.F. Bruce simply too difficult to read and completely understand his argument. Still, this would be an easy book for a college course and sure beats some of the multi-thousand page epics you end up slogging through.
Good info. Short. You just have to wade to get there.
I find F.F. Bruce to be incredibly difficult to read. Technical and dense; incredibly hard to understand with run on sentences and overlapping ideas that don't always mesh well.
The information is absolutely brilliant. Absolutely. Brilliant. It is everything you want to know about the reliability of the Bible, you just have to decipher this writing to find it.
At one point, it seems like he is arguing the infallibility of the original manuscripts. At one point is seems like he he arguing the sufficiency of scripture. I don't see those to be the case, but his writing is so difficult to understand.
He even suggests that Matthew and Luke were written after the sacking of Jerusalem. An interesting idea, and he doesn't explain his position, but I'm not sure how he is gathering that from the text. If we abide by Sola Scriptura, Paul is still alive at the end of Acts, and there is no indication that Jerusalem has been destroyed or that more than one million Jews have lost their lives.
If we seek outside sources, Paul is traditionally said to have been killed in 64, and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70, Luke ends somewhat ambiguously and may imply that Paul is dead, but I see no evidence in any of the Bible that Jerusalem had been sacked (maybe Revelation, but that is a category to itself).
I find F.F. Bruce simply too difficult to read and completely understand his argument. Still, this would be an easy book for a college course and sure beats some of the multi-thousand page epics you end up slogging through.
Good info. Short. You just have to wade to get there.
August 31, 2024
"Does it matter whether the New Testament documents are reliable or not? Is it so very important that we should be able to accept them as truly historical records?" So begins chapter one of this introduction to the topic by renowned scholar F.F. Bruce. He argues, of course, that it both reliability matters ("the truth of the Christian faith is bound up closely with the historicity of the New Testament," so "it is not irrelevant to look at its foundation documents from the standpoint of historical criticism"), and the New Testament is in fact reliable.
In just over 120 pages, Bruce summarizes:
- The New Testament Documents: Their Date and Attestation
- The Canon of the New Testament (the 27 NT books and why)
- The Gospels (their origins and comparisons of them)
- The Gospel Miracles
- The Importance of Paul's Evidence (as Paul wrote before the Gospels were written down)
- The Writings of Luke (who ties in many historical references)
- More Archaeological Evidence
- The Evidence of Early Jewish Writings
- The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers
----------
In the foreword to this volume, N.T. Wright says that "history can be enormously stimulating for Christian faith, opening up new lines of fruitful thought, revealing dimensions and depths to familiar texts, goading 'simple believers' into thinking harder and integrating their minds more fully with their beliefs." I agree. Though this work is a summary, it is a good one, full of fascinating observations and intriguing insights. I loved it and want more. (I read his excellent Canon of Scripture years ago and also recommend it highly.)
In just over 120 pages, Bruce summarizes:
- The New Testament Documents: Their Date and Attestation
- The Canon of the New Testament (the 27 NT books and why)
- The Gospels (their origins and comparisons of them)
- The Gospel Miracles
- The Importance of Paul's Evidence (as Paul wrote before the Gospels were written down)
- The Writings of Luke (who ties in many historical references)
- More Archaeological Evidence
- The Evidence of Early Jewish Writings
- The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers
----------
In the foreword to this volume, N.T. Wright says that "history can be enormously stimulating for Christian faith, opening up new lines of fruitful thought, revealing dimensions and depths to familiar texts, goading 'simple believers' into thinking harder and integrating their minds more fully with their beliefs." I agree. Though this work is a summary, it is a good one, full of fascinating observations and intriguing insights. I loved it and want more. (I read his excellent Canon of Scripture years ago and also recommend it highly.)
May 4, 2024
I have not read much of F.F. Bruce, but I thoroughly enjoyed this short book. There wasn't much that I hadn't heard before, but the advantage of this book is bringing all of this historical research together into a short and accessible format. The only exception to that statement is Bruce's chapter on Luke-Acts which included many helpful historical details I had never heard. That was my favorite chapter. My only minor quibble is that the early chapter on the formation of the gospels may have been a bit technical for lay readers. Yet, I cannot fault Bruce because that field of study is so complex and speculative in many cases that I'm not even sure what a lay-friendly introduction would look like. Ultimately if someone were looking for something on the reliability of the gospels, I would still hand them Peter Williams's book 'Can We Trust the Gospels?' In that book, you will get everything in this book plus more. But if someone were looking for the reliability of Acts and the rest of the NT, I would recommend this book.
September 3, 2018
This is a very dense read!! I originally sought after this book to coincide with my month long study on the validity of the bible. The overarching concepts discussed here definitely aided in strengthening my understanding of how we can trust the bible as a historical piece, and also how to trust its content. For that I am eternally grateful. Unfortunately I got rather lost in the historical depth this book reads, and found myself skimming past some of the historical data. If you enjoy history, you will absolutely love this book and probably take away even more than me. I hope to use this as a resource in the future, and perhaps revisit when I am able to better appreciate the historical detail. Praise God for the contextual evidence presented here to support the life and works of Jesus Christ our savior and biblical times.
March 9, 2018
This book is a classic treatment of the evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament. The many editions of the book bear witness to its helpfulness to many readers since its first publication in 1943. The material is clear, concise and compelling. Bruce does not say more than can be said. He fully recognizes that many issues come down to a matter of faith, but he provides a sound historical basis for discussing these matters. Those with an a priori assumption that supernatural things do not happen will obviously discard any ancient text which contains them, but this assumption would affect the supposed credibility of virtually any ancient historical text. Bruce navigates these and other issues with precision and eloquence.
Read
July 12, 2023"There are in existance over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. THe best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British government purchased from the Soviet government for L100,00 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. "
"The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa - at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 - but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." p. 27
"The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa - at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 - but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." p. 27
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews