1. Would the authors have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?

Can ulterior motives in writing be established to demonstrate that the author made up the account. Of course, this needs to be proved, not simply asserted. If proved, then the reliability of the document becomes more suspect. However, if the author had nothing to gain by his writing, and perhaps even had something to lose, then the document should be seen in a more favorable light, for this would argue for the author's integrity in attempting to tell the truth.

Concerning the Bible, we would ask: what motive would the writers have had to make up their stories about Jesus? Rather than helping themselves, they put themselves in harm’s way by their own teaching. The preaching of the resurrection caused them to be arrested and persecuted. So they had nothing physical to gain by their accounts. In fact, the evidence shows that many lost their lives for the biblical message. Why would they do this for some kind of fabricated message?

2. Are there other outside sources which help confirm material in the document or substantiate the authenticity of it?

Other corraborating sources enhance credibility of an ancient document, particularly when it comes to authorship. (As Boyd notes, though, the same criteria must be applied to these outside sources also.)

Several souces, especially second-century sources, attest to the authorship of New Testament documents. These men were in a better position to know what they were writing about than anyone living two thousand years later. So they must not be lightly dismissed. Further, there are several secular sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Jewish writings) that give information about Jesus and the early Christians.

One notworthy item in this connection: if all copies of the New Testament manuscripts were lost, there are virtually enough quotes from early Christians to completely reproduce the New Testament. This is just one more evidence in favor of reliability.

3. Does archaeology support or hinder material in the document?

When archaeological evidence supports the document in question, then reliability is enhanced. Credibility is damaged when findings go against the document. One need be careful here, though. The lack of archaeological findings neither helps nor hinders. Just because archaeology has not found something does not mean it did not exist. Skeptics have been embarrased by making charges prior to the findings.

Findings have often been found that support the biblical texts. Even some things that used to be thought contrary to the Bible have been reversed in favor of the Bible (e.g., the existence of the Hittite empire; Luke’s account of the census and birth of Jesus). There is much in favor of the Bible; and we know of nothing conclusive that has proved that the Bible is in error. Assumptions and misinterpretations of findings (or lack thereof) do not prove the Bible to be erroneous.

4. Could those who lived at the time of the writings have falsified the accounts, and would they have had a motive for doing so?

If there were contemporaries who could have shown that the accounts were being fabricated, and if they had a motive for doing so but did not, then the document’s trustworthiness is increased. Remember that the Gospel was written in a hostile environment. There were plenty of enemies who would have refuted the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus if they could have (e.g., produce the body of Jesus). But no one could. To the contrary, the message of Christ kept spreading. Enemies of Jesus could not deny the miracles that were done in His name (Acts 4:16). When Peter preached on Pentecost, he appealed to what the people knew, because Jesus had not worked in a corner somewhere (Acts 2:22).

We have a good foundation for accepting the reliability of the biblical documents. They are true sources of history; and we may treat the accounts as such. Again, as F. F. Bruce commented:

"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt." (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15)

We hope these questions will help in spurring us on to look deeper into the Bible. One might reject the Bible, but wouldn't an honest seeker of truth at least want to take a closer look at a Book that demonstrates historical reliability, while claiming to teach truth that can give us a hope of something beyond this life?