The Reliability of The Bible

As I’ve said before, we live in a postmodern world where relativism and pluralism (basically liberalism – Ha!) bring great scepticism to the Bible’s authenticity and Christianity in particular. My focus will be on the New Testament (NT)and the claims of Jesus, but before I get to that I should point out that in the ancient world, when the written word didn’t exist, people relied heavily on oral tradition. To us in the 21st century this may seem unreliable, but in that ancient culture it was of utmost importance, and if the speaker ever embellished a story (or more importantly teachings on God) many people (who knew the teaching) would call him on it. That is, they would instantly know the teacher/speaker was lying – or at least exaggerating. At any rate, an important point to consider when the written word came into being and Scribes began writing down these teachings from oral tradition is, (from Ralph O. Muncaster’s, A Skeptics Search for God):

The importance of the Scribes:

1. The Israelites were a theocracy (governed by God). Their laws were recorded as holy Scripture, and anything regarding that Scripture was of extreme importance and not to be taken lightly. This was especially indicated in the way they copied Scripture for future generations.

Rules for recording Scripture

- Only master scrolls were used for duplication
- Scribes were highly trained and highly esteemed. They were held in training until the age of 30; only after they reached that age could they serve officially.
- Scribes had to ceremonially wash before copying Scripture.
- Anytime the name of God was written, a sanctification prayer was said.
- The name of God was written with letters missing to ensure fulfillment of God’s command to never take his name in vain.
- Although the Scribes had memorized large portions of Scripture, each letter of each copied scroll had to be visually confirmed, one by one.
- A thread was often placed between letters to ensure separation and accuracy.
- Each letter in each scroll was counted, and the count was compared to the master scroll.
- Each word in each scroll was counted, and the count compared to the master scroll. (The Hebrew word for “scribe” literally means “counter”).
- The middle letter in each entire copied scroll was located and compared to the master.
- If there was a single mistake, the scroll was discarded as a master.
- When master scrolls were worn out, they were given ceremonial burial.

2. The Israelites memorized enormous amounts of Scripture. Unlike today many people couldn’t read or write. Education was heavily based on memorization, particularly memorization of holy Scripture, which was the law and divine guidance of the nation. Scripture – in particular the books of the law – was respected as God’s word-for-word instructions to Israel. If anyone attempted to change Scripture, it would require changing not only a vast number of written copies but the memory of hundreds of thousands of people.

3. Prophecy was seen as of utmost importance and was regarded as a criterion to test if something was from God. False prophets were to be executed (Dueteronomy 18:20). Hence any prophecy that was either prove or disproven within a prophet’s lifetime was of enormous importance. It is unlikely false prophet’s would’ve survived.

Very strict laws indeed! Unlikely someone altered Scripture back then… I think it safe to say that the NT Scribes followed this tradition. The NT, though 2000 years old, is not one source, but a collection of 27 different documents written on 27 different scrolls by 9 different writers over a 20-50 year period. And it is VERY easy to believe that any writing that is done within 1 or 2 generations of an event can be accurate by being based on eye witness testimonies and those who knew the eye witnesses. The problem is we only have copies of copies of NT manuscripts. Consider the following:

“At last count, there are 5700 hand-written Greek manuscripts of the NT. In addition there are more than 9000 manuscripts in other languages (Coptic, Syriac, Latin, Arabic). Some are complete Bibles, others are books or papers, and some are just fragments. Nothing else from the ancient world comes even close to that number (Homer’s Iliad comes 2nd with 643 manuscripts). There is also an abundant support of these manuscripts. Men of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (church fathers and others) quoted the NT so much (36,289 times, to be exact) that all but 11 verses can be reconstructed just from these quotations.”

“Especially when taken together, much data are available which confirm the traditional picture regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. This is not to say that all pertinent questions have been solved. But the available evidence from a variety of angles confirms the strong foundation on which the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus can be based.”

The evidence is all around us if one knows where to look. For the sake of keeping this blog from being too lengthy, I’ll move on. See, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm1

Some conservative Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant, but it should be understood that they mean it is the Autographa (original writings) that are considered inerrant. Scholar William Lane Craig makes a good point:

To begin with, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, as I learned it and, I think, as most of its adherents today would defend it, is not arrived at inductively, but deductively. Inerrantists freely admit that no one reading through the Bible and keeping list of difficulties encountered along the way, whether inconsistencies or mistakes, would come to the conclusion at the end of his reading that the Bible is inerrant. He would likely conclude that the Bible, like almost every other book, has some errors in it. But inerrantists have maintained that belief in biblical inerrancy is justified as a deduction from other well-justified truths. For example, the late Kenneth Kantzer, Dean of the seminary I attended, argued for inerrancy by means of the following two syllogisms:

1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.

4. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The claim here is that we have good reasons to think that the Bible, despite its difficulties, is the inerrant Word of God and therefore we should accept it as such. As Friedrich Schleiermacher once put it, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.” One of the best examples of this approach to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is John Wenham’s Christ and the Bible (InterVarsity, 1972).

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5717

Many times in the NT we find Jesus quoting Scripture (OT). He often talked about the (divine) inspiration of Scripture and referred to it as an historical document:

1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.

2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:

Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12)
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:

Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (‘Book of Moses’—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (‘Christ’s Canon’); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (‘The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.’)
Isaiah wrote ‘both’ Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call 'Deutero-Isaiah'. The only real 'reason' for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20.

9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1–9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1–12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word will open the door today to a ‘new’ Tradition.)

10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

11. He made provision for the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men—guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles’ words had the same authority as Christ’s: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12–14.

12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as ‘bibliolatry’ by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.

13. Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it—even though written by men.

The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God’s Word, written by the hand of men.*

* http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

C. S. Lewis wrote about the Trilemma of Jesus (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic) and shows He was neither Liar nor Lunatic; thus being Lord. Though arguments exist that show Jesus might’ve been delusional or whatnot, I find this a stretch of the sceptic’s imagination. To think that Christianity, its growth and all the good it’s done for the individual and humanity stemmed from a delusional mind is…. well, delusional! But if one dislikes the Trilemma argument, then one might look, again, at William Lane Craig. He says:

Actually, there are lots of extra-canonical sources that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection… [Aside from] later extra-canonical sources like Josephus and Tacitus… the really interesting extra-canonical sources are the earlier ones, that is to say, the sources used by the New Testament writers themselves. Now before you cry foul, you need to reflect that these sources are not themselves in the canon but go back even closer to the events than the canonical books. These are, therefore, the center of historical Jesus study today, not the later extra-canonical sources…

What are some of these sources? The Passion story used by Mark, the formula cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5, Matthew’s special source called M, Luke’s special source called L, and so forth. Some of these are incredibly early sources (which helps to answer your second question). The pre-Markan passion story probably dates from the 30s and is based on eyewitness testimony, and the pre-Pauline formula in I Cor. 15.3-5 has been dated within a couple of years or even months of Jesus’ death. I think you can see why these are the really interesting sources, not some later report by Josephus.

Now these sources provide abundant, independent testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Later references to Jesus by the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Syrian writer Mara bar Serapion, rabbinical writings, and extra-biblical Christian authors confirm what the New Testament documents tell us about Jesus but don’t really give us anything new. You can find such sources cited and discussed in R. T. France’s very fine book The Evidence for Jesus (1986) or in Robert Van Voorst’s definitive Jesus outside the New Testament (2000). What is key for the historian, however, will be, not these later sources, but the New Testament documents themselves and their sources…

In my article “Who was Jesus?”… I discuss five reasons why we can have confidence in the general reliability of the Gospels:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the hard core of historical facts.
2. The Gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.”
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5757

I’ve only scratched the surface of arguments for the Bible’s reliability. For me, the evidence is undeniable, and I must give a little chuckle at the sceptics – at least at those who accept other historical documents as reliable which have less evidence backing it. For example, does anyone realize that in our history classes and in encyclopedias we learned about Roman history – the Gallic Wars to be precise? Suetonius, Julius Ceasar’s biographer, was told by Ceasar to write his story. We know of the ferocity of Roman rule and what would happen if one were to go against Ceasar. So it’s fair to say Suetonius probably wrote a one-sided version of Ceasar (otherwise he might be killed). No one questions this… The primary resource for this information (Gallic Wars) is 10 copies of the original writings. The oldest of these copies we have today dates to 1000 years after the autograph by Ceasar. We learn about Julius Ceasar and we don’t question anything about these incidents. Yet the Bible has numerous copies of manuscripts that date within 125 years (Gospel of John {P52}), and we have archaeological evidence of this history told… and people STILL question the authenticity of them. If we are going to be honest with ourselves and our beliefs, we must go where the evidence points.

Advertisement