F. F. Bruce
Abstract of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
In his “firstborn” work, F. F. Bruce provides a “first-rate” defense of the reliability of the New Testament. Originally published in 1943, this book examines original sources, critiques modern interpretive methods, and thus bolsters the faith of many Christians. In the first chapter, Bruce sets forth the need for this study, stating that while the historical veracity of some world religions may not be vital for them, Christianity is based upon the actions of Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth in the first century. The second chapter briefly examines the date and attestation of the New Testament documents, containing some of the most fascinating and exciting facts regarding the multiplicity of extant manuscripts compared to other ancient classics. Chapter three discusses the formation of the Christian canon, citing early documents that contain the Protestant canon and making the important point that the later councils did not decide the canon but merely recognized what had already been accepted by Christians.
The fourth chapter, one of the lengthier sections of the book, gives a quite detailed examination of the gospels, their interconnection, individuality, and reliability. Chapter five is dedicated simply to the miracles of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and emphasizes the importance of understanding the purpose of the miracles instead of attempting to verify them scientifically. Chapter six briefly introduces the evidence given by Paul’s writings and chapter seven discusses Luke’s invaluable contribution to history. Chapter eight provides additional archaeological evidence and chapter nine focuses on evidence in Jewish writings, mainly those of Josephus. The last chapter briefly notices the major, though unwitting contributions of Gentile authors toward the New Testament’s reliability. The book ends with a valuable appendix of resources for further research, suggesting books based on the subjects of the previous chapters.
Strengths of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
As with most books by F. F. Bruce, the strengths of this work outweigh the weaknesses. The greatest strength of this book may be its terseness coupled with surprising detail. Though the main content of the book weighs in at 124 pages, the author was able to pack it with many details without drowning the reader in a sea of facts. In about two and a half pages, Bruce dates nearly the entire New Testament (p. 6-9). The detail included in pages 20-21 concerning the canonization of the New Testament is equally impressive, including information such as the fact that the Pauline corpus, after being copied and collected, was designated simply as Apostolos while the Gospel accounts were designated Euangelion. Likewise, pages 63-65 contain a fine synopsis of explanations (Christian, Jewish, and pagan) for the resurrection of Jesus, leading the reader to reason through the Scriptures for himself instead of force-feeding the answer. But perhaps the most impressive example of this was Bruce’s reconstruction of the Gospel story simply be examining Paul’s epistles in four pages (p. 75-78).
Bruce writes in a fashion that is directed toward students in the beginning of their studies, but he certainly captures the attention of intermediate students. For example, when dating the book of Luke (p. 6) based on Luke 3:1, the author slips in a footnote regarding the customs of dating the beginning of a king’s regnal years of kings in September-October, which is a very helpful fact in discerning the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The entire fourth chapter requires more attention and foundational knowledge in the reader than other chapters, but it makes terms like “form criticism” and “source criticism” less intimidating to those unacquainted with these fields. Similarly, Bruce is unafraid to discuss the “life-setting” of the early church, indicating that a “life-setting” in a “Matthean community” does not preclude a “life-setting” in the life of Jesus. But in this discussion Bruce is noticeably reluctant to use the common German phrase
Sitz im Leben in preference for its more palatable translation for his readership.
The author’s treatment of the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is one of the excellent sections of this book. Bruce clearly but scientifically compares the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament to that of other major historical works of antiquity, even stating that historians are more ready to accept the reliability of the New Testament than New Testament scholars are (p. 10). By comparing the multiplicity of manuscripts of the often scorned New Testament documents with the scarcity of manuscripts of the generally well-received documents of Tacitus, Herodotus, Thucydides, or Julius Caesar, the author presents a case that is far different from what is commonly heard about the Bible in the secular realm.
The author’s use of original sources is thorough. Bruce was obviously conversant in the major historical, philosophical, and religious documents of antiquity. Especially interesting to this reader were Bruce’s quotations of Papias from Eusebius’
Historia Ecclesiae, which provide a fascinating testimony to the early preservation of Scripture and dedication to accuracy, as well as indicating that Mark’s gospel was written under Peter’s tutelage or based on his teachings. But that is not the only example, for Bruce freely quotes Tacitus, Irenaus, Tertullian, and especially Josephus.
In chapter 3, Bruce’s discussion of the canon was both logical and profitable to readers. In an attempt to combat the idea of an arbitrary selection of books into the canon by a council a few hundred years later, the author elucidates the reasons for the development of the canon. One of the reasons Bruce cites was the desire to distinguish which books were suitable for doctrine, not only for the purpose of instruction but also in order to fight heresy. Bruce also notes the liturgical motivation for a canon, indicating that church officials needed to know which documents to include in the public reading of Scripture. Further, in hostile periods of persecution, Christians needed to know which documents they could relinquish to the governing authorities who sought to confiscate their scriptures.
In addition to being readable and profitable, Bruce’s reasoning is quite balanced. When one begins reading about the various forms of criticism in biblical scholarship, one may be tempted to gravitate toward extremes with fundamentalists who avoid any discussion of hermeneutics or with liberals who deny the authority and inspiration of the text. Bruce, however, is balanced in the middle where his belief in the authenticity of the Scriptures does not require him to sacrifice his critical mind. For instance, when the author discusses the Gospels in chapter 4, he appeals to the benefit of form criticism for establishing the reliability of the New Testament text, explaining that early form critics were thought to have the key to dismantling the Bible but actually proved themselves wrong. Bruce argues that the stereotyped style of the Gospel records, though not always identical, actually serve to guarantee the accuracy of their records, comparable to a police officer adhering closely to a certain “form” while giving evidence in court (p. 29). Further, Bruce argues that form criticism has shown that regardless of how far back one looks in search of early oral traditions, he will “never arrive at a non-supernatural Jesus” (p. 29).
Weaknesses of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Though this book is a classic and was not intended to be exhaustive, a little more detail would have been nice at times. For example, on page 27 Bruce lists the differences and similarities of the Gospel accounts by comparing the number of verses in Mark that appear in Luke and others. While this achieved the goal of concisely presenting the material, it does not list specific examples but merely provides the number of verses similar in each account, thus leaving the reader with his appetite whet. Perhaps this was the author’s goal, but the curious mind can be impatient at times.
Likewise, in discussing the reliability of Luke-Acts, the author states the some of Luke’s material could indicate an Aramaic source in Palestine while other material may have originated from Christian Hellenists (p. 39-40). Earlier on the page Bruce speculated that Luke may have received much of his information about the Herod family from Manaen, Antipas’ foster-brother and teacher in the Antioch church. After reading such a fascinating theory, the reader was set up for more when mention of Aramaic and Hellenistic sources were made, but the author progressed to another topic.
A slightly greater complaint may be aimed at Bruce’s usage of “Q” in reference to gospel origins (p. 34, 38). The author is careful never to affirm Q’s existence but states the convenience of using this letter as a designation for “non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke” (p. 34). While this is convenient, it is potentially confusing. However, the author seems to clear any confusion when he states that Matthew and Luke using the same documentary source is unlikely (p. 38).
Summary
This book is a great resource for introducing curious minds to the reliability of the New Testament. It is brief without sacrificing great detail and can strengthen one’s faith in the New Testament while equipping him for further research in not-so-friendly waters. The fact that it has been through six editions after nearly seventy years and retains a great deal of popularity is a testimony to its quality.
Posts
