14 A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963), p. 187.
15 Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, especially pp. 175–184, 198–201.
16 Ibid., p. 182.
17 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.
18 Ibid., p. 186.
yet the history they record can still be ascertained.^19 Another contemporary historian, Paul Maier, makes the same point in reference to the contradictory material in the sources for the great (first century AD) fire in Rome.^20
(5) Form critics speak much of the experiences of the earliest disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these experiences.^21 (6) Some portions of the New Testament, like the book of Acts, are confirmed by external indications of historicity.^22 (7) The principles of form criticism do not preclude an important place for history in the Gospels. Although the primary interest of the Gospel writers was spiritual, history was also very important. There is no good reason why they would pervert the historical in order to preserve the spiritual, when both were so important and even complemented one another.^23
Sherwin-White and Grant are examples of modern historians who have pointed out some of the many weaknesses in the form-critical method as espoused by Bultmann.^24 Both scholars conclude that if the same criteria which are applied to other ancient writings are applied to the New Testament, we can delineate a historical basis for the life and teachings of Jesus.^25
4.Textual attestation
Our fourth critique is not really aimed specifically at Bultmann, but at any critics who would challenge the text of the New Testament, which measures exceptionally well against ancient classical works. This is especially the case in three areas: manuscript number, the time of the writing in relation to the time of the events described, and the completeness of the text. So, in addition to our previous subject concerning factual content, as noted by historians, the New Testament texts can be ascertained.
The New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the number of manuscripts. Ancient classical works have comparatively few manuscripts, with twenty entire or partial copies generally being an excellent number. By comparison, the New Testament has over 5000 copies. Such a wide difference would provide the New Testament with a much better means of textual criticism, which is crucially important in ascertaining the original readings.^26
19 Ibid., pp. 187–188.
20 Paul Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story(New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 94.
21 Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, pp. 181–182.
22 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189. Throughout this volume, Sherwin-White investigates various claims in the book of Acts.
23 Ibid., pp. 189–193.
24 For more complete data concerning these points of critique, see Sherwin-White, Roman Society, pp. 186–193 and Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, especially p. 180–184.
25 Sherwin-White, Ibid., pp. 186–187; Grant, Ibid., pp. 199–200.
26 See F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), especially p. 16; John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust, especially p. 36.
Perhaps the strongest manuscript evidence concerns the date between the original and the earliest copy. For most of the ancient classical works, a gap of only 700 years would be excellent, while 1000–1400 years is not at all uncommon. By comparison, the Chester Beatty Papyri and Bodmer Papyri contain most of the New Testament and are dated about 100–150 years after its completion. An entire copy of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) and a nearly complete manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) date only about 250 years after the original autographs. Such early dates for the New Testament help to insure its authenticity.^27
