It always strikes me as fascinating, and at the same time disturbing, that people seem to have no problem affirming the authenticity of ancient history characters such as Julius Caesar , Thucydides (a Greek general and historian) and Aristotle, for example, and yet are quick to cast doubts over the reliability of the Bible.
We have 10 copies of Caesar’s “Gallic Wars”, the oldest of which was compiled 900 years later than the original. For Thucydides we have 8 manuscripts, dated almost 1300 years after he wrote. And for Aristotle we have 5 manuscripts, the earliest of which has a 1400-year gap from the original. Applying the same tests, the New Testament is almost embarrassing in comparison. We have more than 24 000 early manuscript copies or portions, the oldest of which comes from only 120 years after it was first written.
The New Testament accounts were recorded by men who had either been eyewitnesses of the events and teachings of Jesus themselves, or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses. Their accounts were circulated within the lifetimes of those who were alive at the time of Jesus’ life. These people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of their accounts.
From non-Christian writings of the period (both Jewish and Roman) we have various aspects of the New Testament account corroborated, including: when Jesus lived; where he lived; that his mother was named Mary and that his conception was irregular; that he was a renowned teacher; that he did things that both his friends and foes thought to be supernatural; that he was given the title ‘Messiah’; that he was executed, how, and by whom; that he had a brother who was also executed; that people claimed he was raised from the dead; and that his followers continued to worship him after he was gone.
Why not have a read of the New Testament for yourself? You may well discover that, as one translator famously described it, it has a ‘ring of truth’.