There are eight factors one should consider when evaluating the accuracy and credibility of the New Testament. Because it would be too lengthy an exercise to go through the entire New Testament, we will focus solely on the Gospels; for the analysis that applies to them largely applies to the New Testament as a whole.

The first factor to consider is the intention of the writers. This test seeks to determine whether it was the stated or implied intention of the writers to accurately preserve history. One should begin with the Gospel of Luke, which reads very much like prefaces to other generally historical and biographical works of antiquity.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophillus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke is clearly saying he intended to write accurately about things he investigated and found to be well supported by eyewitnesses. It's true that Mark and Matthew don't have this kind of explicit statement; however, they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs. Consider the way the gospels are written – in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude. It is quite apparent that the goal of the Gospel writers was to attempt to record what had actually occurred.

The second factor to consider is the ability of the writers to accurately and reliably record history. That is, how can we be sure that the material about Yeshua's life and teachings was well preserved for 30 years before it was finally written down in the Gospels?

One must first remember that the New Testament was written in foreign land in a distant time and place and in a culture that had not yet invented computers or even the printing press. Books – or actually, scrolls of papyrus – were relatively rare. Therefore education, learning, worship, teaching in religious communities – all this was done by word of mouth.

At that time, Rabbis also became famous for having the entire Torah and Haphtarah committed to memory. Thus, it would have been well within the capability of Yeshua's disciples to have committed much more to memory than appears in all four Gospels put together – and to have passed it along accurately. This is difficult for us to imagine today, but the time of the Second Temple was an oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on memorization. To be fair, Reverend Oral Roberts who is alive today memorized the entire Torah, Haphtarah and New Testament. It is also important to note that Yeshua's words were originally in poetic form. This doesn't mean words that rhyme; this means words that have meter, balanced lines, parallelism, and so forth. This structure could only serve as an excellent memory aid for the disciples.

Along these lines, it is significant that 10 to 40 percent is consistently the amount of variation among the gospels on any given passage. Why? Because a lot of the similarities and differences among the Gospels can be explained by assuming the disciples committed to memory a lot of what Yeshua said and did, but they felt free to recount this information in various forms, always preserving the significance of Yeshua's original teachings and deeds.

The third factor to consider is the character of the writers. This considers whether it was in the character of these writers to be truthful. That is, this factor considers whether there was any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that might taint their ability or willingness to transmit history accurately.

The reality is that there is no evidence to suggest that the writers of the Gospels were anything but people of great integrity. Specifically, we see them reporting the words and actions of a man who called them to as exacting a level of integrity as any religion has ever known. They were willing to live out their beliefs even to the point of ten of the eleven remaining disciples being put to grisly deaths.

Thus, in terms of honesty, in terms of truthfulness, in terms of virtue and morality, these individuals had a track record that should be envied.

The fourth factor to consider is the consistency of the gospels. After all, aren't they contradictory with each other? The answer is yes. It is through these contradictions, however, that the Gospels gain – not lose – credibility. Ironically, if the Gospels had been identical to each other, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt among them. That is, people would then say there really is only one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.

Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, an author of an influential treaties on evidence, studied the consistency among the four Gospel writers. He offered this evaluation, "There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction."

From the perspective of a classical historian, German scholar Hans Stier has concurred that "agreement over basic data and divergence of details suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistent and harmonized." This reasoning clearly applies to the Gospels as a historical account written by four different men.

The fifth factor to consider is whether the authors of the gospels had any bias that would color their work. Put simply, one cannot underestimate that these individuals loved Yeshua. They were not neutral observers; they were his devoted followers. However, it is for this exact reason that the authors of the gospels were not biased. When people so love and so honor someone, its prompts them to record their life with great integrity. That's how they show their love for them.

How do we know this is true in the case of Yeshua? The reality is that the disciples had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom. They certainly had nothing to gain financially. If anything, this would have provided pressure to keep quiet, to deny Yeshua, to downplay Him, even to forget they ever met Him – yet because of their integrity and love for Him, they proclaimed what they saw, even when it meant their own terrible suffering and death.

The sixth factor to consider is whether the authors of the Gospels covered up any details that didn't help make the case that Yeshua was God in a man. The answer is they did not. Quite the opposite. For example, Mark 6:5 says that Yeshua could do few miracles in Nazareth because the people there had little faith, which seems to limit Yeshua's power. Yeshua's mikva (baptism) is another example. You can explain why Yeshua, who was without sin, allowed himself to be baptized, but why not make things easier by leaving it out altogether?

Here's the point: If the disciples didn't feel free to leave out material when it would have been convenient to do so, is it really plausible to believe that they outright added and fabricated material with no historical basis?

The seventh factor to evaluate is whether the events described in the Bible can be corroborated. Often such corroboration is invaluable in assessing whether a writer has a commitment to accuracy. Applied here, the longer people explore the issue of corroboration, the more the details get confirmed. Within the last hundred years archaeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed the specific references in the Gospels.

Let's take the Gospel of Luke for example. In Luke 3:1, he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years scholars pointed to this as evidence that Luke didn't know what he was talking about, since everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis half a century earlier. If Luke couldn't get that basic fact right, how can anything he wrote be trusted?

That's where archaeology steps in. An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from A.D. 13 – 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus – just as Luke had written. It turned out there had been two government officials named Lysanias! Luke was shown to be exactly right.

Another example is Luke's reference in Acts 17:6 to politarchs (city officials) in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time people thought Luke was mistaken because no evidence of the term politarchs had been found in any ancient Roman documents. However, an inscription on a first-century arch was later found that begins, "In the time of the politarchs...." One can go to the British Museum and see it in person. And then, lo and behold, archaeologists have found more than thirty-five inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Once again the critics were wrong and Luke was shown to be right.

The eighth factor to consider is whether adverse witnesses were present at the time these texts were composed. This factor evaluates whether people in the time of Yeshua contradicted or corrected the Gospels because they were distorted or false. In other words, do we see examples of contemporaries of Yeshua complaining that the Gospel accounts were just plain wrong? After all, many people had reasons for wanting to discredit this movement and would have done so if they could have simply told history better.

Yet look at what His opponents did say. In later Jewish writings Yeshua is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray – which acknowledges that He really did work miraculous wonders, although the writers dispute the source of His power. This would have been a perfect opportunity to say something like, "The Jews who follow Yeshua will tell you He worked miracles, but we are here to tell you he didn't." Yet that's one thing we NEVER see His opponents saying. Instead they implicitly acknowledge that what the Gospels wrote – that Yeshua performed miracles – is true.

Remember, this fragile movement of Jews that believed Yeshua to be our Jewish Messiah could NEVER have taken place in Jerusalem – in the very area where Yeshua ministered and was crucified, buried, and resurrected – if people who knew Him were aware that the disciples were exaggerating or distorting the things He did. If critics in the time of Yeshua could have attacked the movement on the specific basis that the gospels were full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have. But, that's exactly what we don't see.

In sum, if one takes these eight factors together, you emerge with a picture of one of the most reliable sources of text on the planet.