The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

There are many books out there that try to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testement writtings. This is the best one I've read so far. Bruce writes in a way that is detailed enough to point you towards an informed conclusion, but that does not vear off into too many unnecessary side issues. From the very start he is forthcoming with his own Christian position, but is willing to honestly look at objections that could contradict his own conclusions. In a day when fact seems to have very little bearing on peoples beliefs, I think that this book is essential reading

This is the sixth edition of a very popular and useful work first published in 1943. The author examines various evidences which contribute toward our understanding of the reliability of the New Testament documents upon which Christianity stands. We are fortunate to have had such a man and his considerable gifts write on this vital subject. F. F. (Frederick Fyvie) Bruce is perhaps best known for his ability to combine deep scholarship and practical down-to-earth communication (pp. x-xi): "Though this book remains at a level the beginner can understand, Bruce pulls no punches. When he needs to cite recondite evidence, he cites it, with due explanation. We are never left in doubt that the argument is underpinned by serious and accurate knowledge of the ancient sources. . . . Fred Bruce was, in short, a tower of strength in the worlds of scholarship and faith, and in particular to those who, like him, were and are determined not to separate the two." There is an immense amount of valuable information packed within this relatively small book-all of it clearly presented, well-documented, and convincing in its survey of ancient documents. Yet, for all that, the text is easily read by non-academics. Indeed, such is the intended audience of the work. After having established that the reliability of the New Testament documents do matter, the author turns to a consideration of manuscript evidence and other early writings which show us that the New Testament we have today is a reliable representation of its original form. In an especially interesting section, Bruce discusses the many historical subtleties mastered by Luke, both in his gospel and especially in Acts (pp. 82-83):. "The accuracy of Luke's use of the various titles of the Roman Empire has been compared to the easy and confident way in which an Oxford man in ordinary conversation will refer to the Heads of Oxford colleges by their proper titles -- theProvost of Oriel, the Master of Balliol, the Rector of Exeter the President of Magdalen, and so on. A non-Oxonian like the present writer never feels quite at home with the multiplicity of these Oxford titles. But Luke had a further difficulty in that the titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial government to administration by a direct representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul but by an imperial legate. . ." The author also includes a chapter discussing archaeological evidence related to various passages in the New Testament. This is both helpful in establishing the reliability of the Scriptures as a historical record, but also a useful and interesting source of background for use by preachers and teachers. A minor criticism: the author could have spent less time in such a short work discussing source criticism of the Gospels. Postulating the existence of the conjectured "Q" document does little to shed light on the reliability

F.F. Bruce is probably one of the finest New Testament scholars there ever was and possible there ever will be. Why? Because my New Testament Studies professor in college said so, despite disagreeing with every single conclusion Bruce ever made about authorship, dating, or importance of the various books of the New Testament, not because of a lack of scholarship or invalid arguments or data, but simply because he did not wish to have the same conclusions as Bruce. That says a lot for a scholar. In addition, the research he has done is superb and the writing style is sublime. You will see other New Testament authors go into lengthy discussions on dating alone, but Bruce somehow manages to condense his entire argument into something that will fit in your shirt pocket. That also says a lot, both for the man and the work. The fact that it is still so widely regarded among not only NT studies folks but laymen only further proves its staying power. However, despite its refreshing brevity, I do wish Bruce had taken the time to go into greater depth on the books themselves, tackling some of the more complex problems of authorship of more of the NT books. Still, it's quite good and worth your time to read no matter which side of the fence you're on.

At about 120 pages, this book accomplishes its objective more than adequately. Dr. Bruce demonstrates the fact that the New Testament as we know it today is a very accurate replica of the original first-century writings. Who should read this book? A Christian struggling with doubts about the truth of their faith. Or if you are someone who isn't experienced at defending your faith against arguments from your skeptical friends or relatives. If you've never been sure how to respond to statements like, "The gospels were written so far after the life of Jesus that they are totally inaccurate" or "Since we don't have the original copies of the New Testament books there is no way we could possibly know how much they've been tampered with", then you need to read this book.Your faith and intellect will be strengthened after reading this great little book. It's concise and you don't have to be a Greek scholar to understand it.