The writings of Josephus (c. AD 37–100) are of great importance for New Testament studies. All seven books of his Jewish War (c. AD 75) survive in nine complete manuscripts, of which the oldest dates to the fifth century. His twenty-volume Jewish Antiquities (c. 93) is extant in six Greek manuscripts, the three most reliable of which date to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. Despite this distance between the original work and the extant copies, no scholar seriously questions the integrity of the text.
Arrian, who lived c. AD 86–160, wrote the Anabasis of Alexander, some 450 years after the brief reign of the famous conqueror. Our earliest extant copy of Arrian’s work, which is damaged and in places illegible, dates to AD 1200.
Against the backdrop of these classical works the New Testament Gospels compare quite favorably. Large portions of the four Gospels are preserved in β45, a papyrus codex that dates to the early third century or perhaps the late second century, as some contend. Late second-century β66 preserves most of the Gospel of John. Late second-century β75 preserves large chunks of Luke and John. A number of small fragments are candidates for a second-century date. These include β64,67, β77, β103 and β104, which preserve fragments of Matthew; β4, which may have been part of β64,67, preserves a fragment of Luke; and β5, β52, β90, β108 and β109 preserve small fragments of the Gospel of John. The prize for being the oldest fragment of a New Testament writing goes to β52, which contains small portions of John 18 and is dated by most papyrologists to shortly before AD 150, or about 50 or 60 years after John was composed and first circulated.
There are a number of other papyri fragments dating to the third century. In all, some 60 manuscripts date before AD 300. Recall, too, that large portions of the Gospels are quoted in second- and third-century Church Fathers. And, of course, we have the great codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which contain the four Gospels. These codices are dated to about AD 340. This means that we have the complete text of the four New Testament Gospels preserved in documents about 270–280 years removed from the autographs, that we have substantial portions of the text of the Gospels preserved in documents about 130–200 years removed from the autographs, and that we have tiny portions of the text in perhaps as many as one dozen documents about 70–120 years removed from the autographs. All in all, not a bad record. Compared to many of the classical writings and histories, where in most cases there are gaps of 800 to 1,000 years or more between the time of the author and our oldest surviving copy of his manuscript, it is an excellent record indeed.
With regard to the New Testament Gospels, the temporal distance between an event of history or a historical personage and its record is also impressive. The Synoptic Gospels were written about 30–40 years or so after the death of Jesus. Q, the source Matthew and Luke utilized, may have been written in part within a decade of Jesus’ death. The fourth Gospel was written 60–70 years after the death of Jesus. In the case of some of the classical writers, the temporal distance is comparable. Indeed, some classical writers were eyewitnesses of at least some of the events they described; others claimed acquaintance with eyewitnesses. But this is not always the case. Livy and Tacitus wrote greatly removed in time from most of the events they describe in their respective accounts of Roman history.13 Even with respect to the famous conqueror Alexander the Great, there is a surprising distance between the man and the sources that tell us about him.14
This list could be extended, but we think enough examples have been provided to make our point. Most of our literature from late antiquity that has survived is extant in small numbers of manuscripts, which in most cases are greatly removed in time from their authors. Some of the authors of these works were greatly removed in time from the events they narrate. Despite these disadvantages, historians of ancient Greece and Rome believe their sources are sufficient for the task.15
As historical sources the New Testament Gospels are very promising. Three of the four Gospels were written before the end of the generation that knew Jesus or heard stories and teachings from those who knew Jesus. This fact leaves open the possibility that their accounts can give us reliable and fair portraits of the life and teaching of Jesus. This possibility is strengthened by the observation that the Jesus tradition in the Pauline letters coheres with what is preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. Indeed, this coherence militates against the idea that the Jesus tradition of the Synoptic Gospels is the product of imagination and invented stories. After all, Paul was personally acquainted with several early Christian leaders who had been personally acquainted with and instructed by Jesus (Gal 1:18–2:14).16 The coherence of the Jesus tradition in Paul with what we find in the Synoptic Gospels constitutes important evidence of the antiquity and authenticity of the Synoptic tradition.
Summary
The text of the New Testament Gospels is fully extant in manuscripts 250 years or so removed in time from the originals, and it is partially extant in several manuscripts much closer in time. It is widely agreed that the text we have today is very close to the original, so close that no major teaching is in doubt. This fact calls for a presumption that we have something pretty close to the original text of the Gospels.
How reliable is the text of the Qur’an? It is hard to say, because proper collation and comparison have not yet taken place. The work of Francois Deroche, Keith Small, and Dan Brubaker, among others, suggests that a lot of work needs to be done with Qur’anic manuscripts before we know if the text of the Qur’an has been as well preserved as the text of the New Testament.17
In chapter 1 we were able to show that there are good reasons to conclude that the Greek New Testament Gospels provide us with early, reliable historical information about Jesus. In the present chapter we have seen that the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament are old, numerous, and accurate. In the next chapter we will address the important question of how Jesus understood himself and his mission.
Chapter 3—How Did Jesus Understand Himself and His Mission?
Messiah and Son of God
Probably the biggest debate relating to Christian origins and theology centers on the question of who Jesus really was (and is). This debate centers on the question of how Jesus understood himself. Did Jesus understand himself as the Messiah? Did he think of himself in divine terms?
The first question can be answered by appeal to the crucifixion of Jesus as “king of the Jews,” which is acknowledged by all four New Testament Gospels (Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) and in an indirect way by Paul (Rom 1:3–4, NKJV: “born of the seed of David”; cf. 2 Tim 2:8). The execution of Jesus as Israel’s king almost certainly implies that Jesus had allowed, even encouraged, his followers to regard him as Israel’s anointed king. In Roman eyes, of course, the Jewish Messiah is the equivalent of what Rome preferred to call “king of the Jews.” Accordingly, the first question is not especially difficult. We’ll pursue it further in chapter 12.
The second question is much more difficult to answer: Did Jesus think of himself in divine terms? Part of the problem stems from the Jewish religious culture, in which modesty is expected: “Are you he who is to come?” “Go and tell John what you hear and see.” “Are you the Messiah?” “You have said so.” These questions and their respective answers are examples of this modesty. As a rule, Jesus does not provide an explicit answer. He does not tell his disciples that he is the Messiah; he asks them their opinion (Mark 8:27–29). He does not say “yes” to the messengers of John; rather, he tells them to go back and report to John what they have observed (Matt 11:2–6).1
The second question is especially difficult in reference to Jesus, because he and his disciples were devout Jews and as such were strict monotheists. But if they