Apologetics · FaithLogic
The New Testament on Trial — Anonymous, Late, Contradictory, "400,000 Variants"?
Four charges are usually stacked together to argue the New Testament cannot be trusted: the Gospels are anonymous, they were written too late by non-eyewitnesses, they contradict each other, and the text has hundreds of thousands of variants. Each is worth taking on its own terms.
"The Gospels Are Anonymous"
The Titles Are Early and Unanimous
The Gospels do not name their authors in the body of the text — but neither do most ancient biographies, which carried their identification in the title. Every manuscript that preserves the opening carries "According to Matthew / Mark / Luke / John," with no competing attributions anywhere in the tradition — striking, if the names were guesses. Papias, writing around AD 125, already reports Mark as the record of Peter's preaching and a collection of sayings by Matthew. Luke names his method in a formal preface (Luke 1:1–4) and writes as a travelling companion of Paul (the "we" sections of Acts). The attributions are not late church invention; they are the earliest thing we have.
"They Were Written Too Late"
Within Living Memory — and the Creed Is Older Still
Mark is usually dated around AD 65–70, the others between 70 and 95 — three to six decades after the events, within the lifetime of witnesses. By ancient standards that is close: the earliest full biographies of Alexander the Great date some four hundred years after him, and no one treats his life as unknowable. And behind the Gospels lie earlier sources: the resurrection creed Paul "received" and quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7 is dated by scholars of every persuasion to within a few years of the crucifixion.
"They Are Not Eyewitness Testimony"
The Genre and the Named Witnesses
Richard Burridge's What Are the Gospels? settled a long debate: they are ancient biography (bios) — a genre concerned with a real person and his significance, not fiction. Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses argues that the named minor characters in the Gospels (Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene and his sons, Jairus, the women at the tomb) function as the tradition's identified sources — people the first readers could still consult. Luke says exactly this: his account rests on what was "handed down by those who from the first were eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:2).
"They Contradict Each Other"
Independent Witnesses Differ on the Edges, Agree on the Core
The resurrection accounts differ in detail — how many angels, the order of the visits — and agree on everything load-bearing: Jesus was buried, the tomb was found empty, women were the first witnesses, and the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples. In a courtroom, four accounts that matched word for word would signal collusion; independent testimony always varies at the periphery. The two genealogies (Matthew and Luke) trace different lines — Matthew the legal, royal line through Joseph, Luke a second line — a puzzle ancient readers already worked on (Julius Africanus, c. AD 220, proposed a levirate marriage). The "day of the crucifixion" question turns on whether John's "day of Preparation" means Friday of Passover week, which most scholars think resolves it. None of these touch the central events.
"There Are 400,000 Textual Variants"
More Manuscripts Means More Variants — and Ehrman's Own Concession
The number is real, and it exists because the New Testament is the best-attested work of antiquity: around 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus more than 10,000 Latin and thousands in other languages — orders of magnitude beyond any classical text. More copies means more copying differences. The overwhelming majority are spelling, word order, and obvious slips; the variants that are both meaningful and genuinely in doubt are a tiny fraction and affect no article of Christian doctrine. Bart Ehrman, whose Misquoting Jesus popularised the "400,000" figure, says so himself in the book's appendix: his argument "does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants." (See also the dedicated treatment in the manuscripts library.)
💡 "The New Testament Is Unreliable" — Complete Response"Four charges get stacked, and each is weaker alone. Anonymous? The titles 'According to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John' are early and have no rivals in the manuscripts; Papias reports Mark and Matthew by AD 125. Too late? Mark is within 35 years, on top of creeds dated to within a few years — closer than the main sources for Alexander the Great. Non-eyewitness? They are ancient biography, and name their sources (Luke 1:2; Bauckham's work on the named characters). Contradictory? The resurrection accounts agree on burial, empty tomb, women first, and appearances, and differ only where independent witnesses always differ. 400,000 variants? That is because we have 5,800+ Greek manuscripts — far more than any ancient text — and Ehrman himself concedes 'the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants.'"
The four charges lean on each other, and each is weaker alone. The Gospel titles are early and uncontested; the books were written within living memory, on top of creeds older still; they read as ancient biography and point to named witnesses; their differences are the ordinary variation of independent testimony around a fixed core; and the "400,000 variants" are a function of having far more manuscripts than any other ancient book — with, on the skeptic's own admission, no essential belief in question. The New Testament is not a weak text held together by faith; by the standards used for every other ancient document, it is the strongest one we have.
This is part of the FaithLogic study library — the biblical, historical and manuscript case that Jesus is God, with every claim linked to its source. Open the interactive version for search, cross-references, read-aloud, and the full library.