This is a three-part series, exploring the question “Can We Trust the Bible?”  Part One is here and Part Three here.

The Facts about the New Testament

When we open the New Testament today, we’re reading a collection of writings that has shaped Western civilization, formed the basis of Christian belief, and influenced billions of lives. But how did this collection of 27 books come to be? How can we be confident in its authenticity? The process is not only historically fascinating, it is rooted in reliability, integrity, and the deep concern early Christians had for truth.

To help understand the formation and reliability of the New Testament, we’ll explore four key ideas: the importance of eyewitness testimony, the rejection of false writings, the recognition (not creation) of the canon, and the textual reliability of the manuscripts we have today.

Eyewitness Testimony: The Foundation of the New Testament

After the resurrection of Jesus, the early church was born, led by those who knew Jesus personally, His disciples, and later Paul, who personally encountered the risen Christ. These individuals began to write down Jesus’ teachings and their experiences with Him and then they began circulating these writings. These writings became the foundation for what we now call the New Testament.

In the ancient world, eyewitness testimony was not just helpful, it was essential. The early Christians lived in a largely oral culture where reliable oral tradition carried great authority, especially because widespread literacy and written records were limited. As author Timothy Paul Jones notes, “In ancient oral cultures, experiences were shared reliably through oral testimonies” (Jones, How We Got the Bible, p. 69).

To illustrate this, think about an event from our lifetimes like the 2013 Calgary flood. The Calgary Herald published The Flood of 2013 – A Summer of Angry Rivers in Southern Alberta, filled with eyewitness accounts and photos. Those who witnessed the flood firsthand and took part in cleanup efforts on the Siksika Nation, can affirm the book’s reliability because they were there. If someone were to write a fictional version about this event, even years later, involving a 100-foot wave, eyewitnesses would still be alive and they would dismiss this claim as being inaccurate. But 100 years from now, when it is likely that no eyewitnesses will still be alive, false accounts could gain traction unless reliable records exist, such as a book of eyewitness accounts!

This same principle applied in the first century. The people who had seen Jesus, heard His teaching, and witnessed the resurrection were still alive as these texts circulated. As such, false claims could be refuted—and they were.

Guarding the Truth: Rejecting False Writings

Contrary to the belief that early Christians naively accepted any writing about Jesus, they were remarkably discerning. They evaluated books based on apostolic connection, doctrinal accuracy, and consistency with other accepted teachings.

For example, in the second century, a writing called the Gospel of Peter was being read by the church in Rhossus (located in modern day Turkey).  It was initially approved by the bishop overseeing the area, Serapion of Antioch, who, after reading it himself, found some of the content bizarre and exaggerated. He wrote to the church, “We accept (the writings) of Peter and the other apostles just as (we would accept) Christ, but … we deliberately dismiss [inauthentic writings], knowing that no such things have been handed down to us” (Jones, p. 88). Serapion understood that just because a book had an apostle’s name on it, that alone did not make it genuine.

Another example comes from the fictional Acts of Paul and Thecla, which added wild tales to Paul’s journeys. Church leaders in Asia Minor traced the book back to a pastor who admitted he made it up “out of love for Paul.” Despite his good intentions, the early church took it seriously enough to remove him from leadership. Jones explains, “From the first century forward, Christians knew that historical facts formed the basis for their faith and practices” (Jones, p. 82).

Modern skeptics often claim that legitimate gospels were left out, but these so-called “lost gospels” were never truly accepted by the early church. As Charlie Campbell points out in One Minute Answers to Skeptics, “The supposedly lost books … were pseudo gospels that the early church rejected as uninspired, spurious writings.”

Recognizing the Canon: Not Creating It

A common misconception is that church councils created the New Testament in the fourth century. In actuality, they recognized what had already become standard practice among churches across the Roman Empire. As Jones notes, “Christians concluded together that a total of 27 books … could be traced back to apostolic testimony from the first century” (Jones, p. 87). These weren’t arbitrary decisions. They were affirmations of books already considered authoritative and inspired by most of the early Christian community.

J.B. Lightfoot, a renowned biblical scholar, summarized it well: “No church council made the canon of Scripture. No church by its decrees gave to or pronounced on the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church” (Lightfoot, pp. 161–162).

New Testament authors themselves believed they were communicating God’s word. Paul confidently wrote, “when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). He also stated, “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).

Manuscript Accuracy: Trusting the Text We Have Today

Some critics argue that the Bible has been copied so many times that it can’t be trusted, but that view does not hold up under scrutiny.

While manuscript copyists did make occasional errors – like misspellings or skipped words – these were easily identified and corrected. Jones explains, “Most of their mistakes were misspellings or slips of the pen … With so many manuscripts … scholars can almost always reconstruct the original reading of the text” (Jones, p. 107).

Today, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, thousands more in Latin and other languages, and over 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers. Charlie Campbell notes that these quotations alone allow scholars to reconstruct 99.86% of the New Testament; only 11 verses go uncited.

So, while we acknowledge that minor manuscript differences exist, the message remains unchanged. The Bible we read today is remarkably faithful and consistent with what the early church had.

A Legacy of Truth

The New Testament didn’t appear out of thin air, nor was it assembled carelessly. It was born out of the lived experiences of Jesus’ followers, preserved by eyewitnesses, protected by church leaders, and passed down with careful attention to detail and truth.

If we trust firsthand accounts of modern events like the 2013 Calgary flood, how much more should we trust the writings of those who walked with Jesus? Their writings were not only preserved but scrutinized, authenticated, and honored by a community that valued truth above all.

In a world filled with misinformation and revisionist history, the New Testament stands as a historically credible and theologically rich document; not because it was created by powerful institutions, but because it was preserved by faithful witnesses who had everything to lose—and nothing to gain—by telling the truth.

Compiled from a sermon given by Pastor Dan Kowalczyk with editorial help from Kelly Martin. You can listen to the sermon audio here.