2003-10-28 - 1:03 a.m.

Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior of mankind, and the Sovereign Lord of all creation. Jesus Himself declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father [God] except through me” (John 14:6).

The primary historical source containing information about Jesus Christ is found in the Bible, specifically the New Testament portion. For this reason, during the 19th and 20th centuries, critics of Christianity began to attack the reliability of the Biblical documents.

However, modern scholarship has shown that such criticisms lack historical foundation and have been outdated by recent archeological discoveries. Nevertheless, despite these facts, many non-Christians today continue to distrust the Bible, declaring with confidence that it is historically unreliable. Ironically, the vast majority of those who hold this position have never investigated the evidence for themselves—they simply repeat what they’ve heard from others. In reality, such critics of the Bible do not base their views on solid fact or research, but on hearsay. Hence, in most cases, their disbelief of the Bible is based upon unreliable information. Moreover, not only have most skeptics never studied the matter for themselves, most have never even read through one of the Gospels in its entirety! There is a very serious issue at stake in the debate over the truthfulness of the Bible. If the Bible is proven to be wholly unreliable, then one can rest content in rejecting the claims of Jesus Christ. However, if the evidence favors the reliability of the Bible, then one is morally obligated to submit to Christ’s Lordship. The issue of the Bible’s reliability, then, is much more serious than a mere academic exercise.

It involves the very issues of life and death—of heaven and hell—of eternal life and eternal judgment. The purpose of this article, then, is to concisely state the case for the Bible’s reliability. What follows are some of the most common objections that have been used to dismiss the historical reliability of the Bible—particularly the New Testament portion. Each objection is answered by the most recent scholarship and applies the three tests used by historians to determine the reliability of a historical document: the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. When we apply these three tests in the light of modern Biblical scholarship, the evidence powerfully suggests that the Bible is genuine, authentic, and reliable.

Objection 1: The Bible has been copied so many times throughout the centuries that it cannot possibly be trustworthy. Surely the original meaning has changed over the many years of being copied and re-copied.

Response: This objection calls into question the genuineness of the Bible, for it casts doubt on the belief that the Bible that we use today is the same as that written by the original authors. While this objection seems reasonable on the surface, it crumbles under careful scrutiny. It is refuted by the bibliographical test—which is an examination of how documents are transmitted and reach us. According to the bibliographical test, the genuineness of a document is determined by the number of copies that were made from the original manuscript (handwritten document), the time interval between the original and the copies, and the number of discrepancies within those copies. Based upon the manuscript evidence alone, the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in existence of comparable age. Presently, there are over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts in existence. Homer’s Iliad, which has only 643 manuscript copies, ranks second to the New Testament in manuscript authority (numbers of copies)! Furthermore, the earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are extremely close to the time when the originals were penned. In comparison to all other classical writings of the ancient world, the manuscript copies of the New Testament are hundreds of years closer to their originals. Moreover, there is only a 2% variation within the manuscripts—most of them being accounted for by differences in spelling and punctuation! In effect, not one of the variants (differences) alters any orthodox Christian doctrine. For these reasons, manuscript expert Sir Frederic Kenyon has stated, “Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

The bibliographical test, then, assures us that the New Testament is the most reliable piece of ancient classical literature due to

the abundance of its manuscript evidence. If we doubt the historical reliability of the New Testament, we will have to discard our entire knowledge of the ancient Greek and Roman world. For the bibliographical evidence of the New Testament documents is far superior to that of any classical Roman or Greek work! For example, the earliest copy of Tacitus’ Annals was written 1,000 years after the original manuscript and there are only 20 copies of it in existence today. Likewise, the earliest copy of Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars was written 800 years after the original and there are only 8 in existence today. In stark contrast, the earliest copies of the New Testament were written approximately 50 years after they were originally authored and there are about 24,000 manuscript portions of it in existence today!

A further evidence of the genuineness of the Bible is based upon the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before the Scrolls were

discovered in 1947, the oldest existing complete manuscript of the Old Testament was dated around A.D. 900. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls contains a complete copy of the book of Isaiah. Paleographers dated the text around B.C. 125, over 1,000 years earlier than the manuscripts of Isaiah that we had previously possessed. Amazingly, the text of the two copies were identical in 95% of the text. The 5% variation consisted only in spelling and in obvious slips of the pen! Therefore, the exactness of the two scrolls, which span a period of 1,000 years of transmission, demonstrates that the Scriptures are indeed genuine.

All of this evidence seems astounding, but we must remember that the copyists of the Bible considered it to be a sacred text.

Hence, the copyists exercised a great deal of caution and precision in transcribing it. They certainly applied far more care to the

transmission of the Biblical text than did the Roman and Greek historians and playwrights. In our high schools and colleges we make use of the works of ancient Roman history without any consideration or concern about the reliability of the texts. We have no doubts that the history of Nero, for example, as reported by the ancient Roman writings of Tacitus and Suetonius is reliable.

Yet, the New Testament is far more abundant in manuscript evidence than any of these works—and the time interval between

the original documents and their subsequent copies is far closer! In sum, if one is going to discard the Bible as being

untrustworthy, then they will have to discard all other pieces of classical literature.

Objection 2: The New Testament is filled with legends and myths about Jesus Christ that were written by His followers generations after He lived.

Response: While the previous objection calls into question the genuineness of the Biblical texts, the above objection calls into question the authenticity of the text. While we can be sure that the Bible we have today is virtually the same as it was when it was originally written, can we be sure that what it reports is factual and authentic?

Based upon both the internal and external evidence, we can be absolutely certain that the New Testament authors wrote their accounts of Jesus within a generation of the time in which He lived. William F. Albright from John Hopkins University, regarded as “the father of modern archaeology,” has stated, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date of 130-150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.” According to Albright’s research, “every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the 40’s and 80’s of the first century A.D.” The external evidence makes this abundantly clear.

For instance, the earliest copy of the Gospel of Matthew dates into the last quarter of the first century and the earliest copy of the Gospel of John dates into the first quarter of the second century. These documents were found in Egypt, not in Palestine where they were originally written. Therefore, the latest possible date for John’s Gospel carries us several years into the first century and the latest date for Matthew brings us quite close to A.D. 75 (for one must allow time for the manuscripts to get from Palestine to Egypt in a day when you didn’t have printing presses, automobiles, and fax machines).

The internal evidences, which are numerous, also indicate these same dates (see John A.T. Robinson’s Redating the New Testament for a thorough discussion on the internal evidence attesting to the early dates of the Gospel accounts). Consequently, it is beyond the realm of debate that the entire New Testament was on paper well within the century in which Christ lived—a growing number of scholars dating it within a generation of His earthly life! Such evidence utterly destroys the notion that the New Testament contains mythology and legendry. Legends and myths simply could not develop and survive in such a short time span, for those who were first-hand witnesses of the events would have discounted such false reports (accordingly, historians tell us that it takes at least two generations for a myth to develop). This is unshakeable evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament accounts of Christ.

Finally, the external evidence supplied by archaeological discoveries also supports the authenticity of the Biblical accounts. Archaeologist Joseph Free has rightly stated, “Archeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.” Along this same line archeologist Nelson Glueck declares, “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.” Finally, according to William F. Albright, “The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eightieth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.” Some of the more recent archeological discoveries supporting the Biblical records are as follows: the Ebla tablets, the existence of the Hittite empire, the walls of Jericho, the Pavement (the court where Jesus was tried), the Pool of Bethesda, the village of Bethsaida, the cave of Macpelah, and many others.

To further argue against the notion of myth in the Bible, I would invite you to read through some of the great legendary and mythical writings, such as the legends of Krishna, Osiris, and Mithras, and compare them with a reading of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament. Such an objective comparison will clearly demonstrate the profound difference between the fantastic events reported in the “mythical literature” and the sobriety of the New Testament accounts.

Objection 3: The writers of the New Testament deliberately lied about their account of Jesus Christ—His Person, His miracles, and His resurrection.

Response: We have already established that the New Testament accounts of Christ were not mythical. Yet the above objection goes a step further. If the writers of the New Testament were not passing on legend and myth, did they fabricate their accounts in order to deceive their audience? Once again, a careful application of the internal and external evidence tests to the New Testament discounts this objection. First, the historical fact of Christ’s existence is well documented outside of the Christian tradition (just a few examples are Tacitus, Annals, 15:44, Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus, Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25:4, Pliny the Younger, Epistles 10:96, Phlegon, Chronicles, Thallus, Histories, Bk. 3, Josephus, Antiquities 18:33, 29:1, the Babylonian Talmud, etc.).

The historical evidence is quite clear that even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus. Rather, the notion that Jesus never existed was put forth by several writers in the 18th-19th centuries on inadequate grounds—no serious historian or scholar today affirms it. In fact, there is more evidence of the existence of Christ than that of Caesar, Nero, Hammurabi, Aristotle, Plato, and many other major historical figures. Furthermore, from a common sense standpoint, it is inconceivable that the person who has had the greatest influence on the civilized world never existed! Hence, the notion that the New Testament writers fabricated the man Jesus is beyond believability.

As the great historian Will Durant has said, “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of High Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western civilization” (The Story of Civilization, Bk 3, pg.557).

Second, the New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who were either eyewitnesses of Christ themselves or related the accounts of those who were eyewitnesses of Him. Both external and internal evidence supports this conclusion. For instance, an examination of the earliest Christian writings, such as that of Papias (AD 130) and Irenaeus (AD 180), has led scholars to conclude that all four Gospels are based upon apostolic (“eyewintess”) sources. Accordingly, the New Testament documents constitute what is called “primary” or “first-hand” evidence. Notwithstanding, what the New Testament writers reported were not only observed by themselves, but also by their contemporaries—some of which were hostile to Christianity. Consequently, since the New Testament writings were circulated within the lifetimes of those alive when Jesus lived, they could have easily denied the accuracy of the events reported—but they did not!

Concerning the primary source evidence of the New Testament, eminent scholar F.F. Bruce has effectively pointed out, “And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the fact in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.”

Therefore, if the New Testament writers were inaccurate concerning their accounts of Christ, such fraud or inaccuracy would have been exposed by their contemporaries. Rather, we have external evidence outside of the New Testament whereby early critics of Christianity confirmed Christ’s words and acts. While they conceded that the miracles that Jesus performed were real and the teachings that He gave were authentic, they disagreed with His message and attributed His powers to magical arts or demonic powers. They, however, never denied the actual events!

Third, internal evidence regarding the nature of the New Testament accounts testifies to its historical reliability. Along this line, historian Will Durant has pointed out that the mere fact that the New Testament authors recorded their own weaknesses and failures strongly attests that they could not have “invented” their reports (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 3, p.557). In other words, the writings themselves do not read like propaganda. Common sense would dictate that if one deliberately constructed a false event, he surely wouldn’t want to include his own weaknesses and failures in it.

Fourth, the New Testament writers willingly died for their report. This fact alone is unshakeable evidence. While many people have willingly died for what they believed was the truth, few if any would die for a lie that they themselves had conceived! The fact is that all twelve disciples of Jesus willingly suffered in the cruelest ways for their testimony that Christ had risen from the dead. They were tortured, flogged, imprisoned, and beaten for their testimony that they had seen the resurrected Jesus and that He was the Son of God. In fact, eleven out of the twelve disciples became martyrs for their testimony. This suggests that what the disciples had reported concerning Christ was indeed accurate. Stated simply, how many con men have you heard of that were willing to die for their con?

Objection 4: The Bible is full of contradictions and discrepancies. This proves that it is unreliable and untrue.

Response: In response to this objection, the chief question that must be examined is, “What constitutes a real discrepancy?” We must keep in mind that the New Testament provides us with four separate accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus, all written by different authors who told the story of Jesus from their own perspective. Accordingly, it is not fair to conclude that every difference within the accounts constitutes a contradiction. In many cases, the Biblical authors narrated the same event, yet one was compelled to emphasize certain aspects of it while the other writers shoved those aspects into the background. For example, in the book of Acts we are told that Judas Iscariot fell headlong and his body burst open. Yet, the book of Matthew tells us that Judas hung himself. Is this a contradiction? I submit that it is not. Matthew does not deny that after Judas hung himself he fell headlong; neither does Acts rule out that Judas hung himself before his fall. By piecing together the evidence, it seems that Judas suspended himself on a very steep cliff overhanging the Valley of Hinnom where the rope or the tree limb gave way, causing Judas to fall and become mangled as described in Acts.

Another cause for apparent discrepancies is when one makes the mistaken assumption that the Gospel writers are reporting the same event when they are not. For example, both Matthew and Luke list the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Yet, their genealogies differ greatly. Does this mean that they contradict each other? Certainly not. The traditional view, which is supported by good evidence, suggests that Matthew traces Christ’s genealogy from the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), while Luke follows the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative). As one scholar has noted, “Every difficulty and discrepancy in the Scriptures is, and will yet be seen to be, capable of a fair and reasonable solution.” In sum, the apparent contradictions of the Bible are often easily explained and reconciled when all of the evidence is examined in context (for further details see John W. Haley’s classic book, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible).

A Final Word In addition to the overwhelming historical evidence corroborating the credibility of the Bible is the solemn fact that throughout the centuries, some of the most intelligent, well-educated, and rational people have read the New Testament accounts and have found them to contain “the ring of truth.” While this is certainly not “hard proof,” it should predispose us to the fact that it is quite reasonable to believe in the message of the Scriptures. Coupled with the body of evidence that we have just considered, the testimony of multitudes of intellectuals who have believed the report of the Scriptures ought to be given some weight.

In closing, I want to challenge you to pick up the Gospel of Mark and read through it in its entirety. Pray before you read it and think carefully over the content. I trust that your eyes will be opened to behold the truth and reality of the Risen Christ—and I pray that you too will discover the eternal and unchanging truth that was penned by the great historian Luke nearly two thousands years ago, “For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).”

For a more in-depth examination of the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, I highly recommend the following books:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell

Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson

The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce

Jesus and Christian Origins Outside of the New Testament by F.F. Bruce

Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands by William F. Albright

Archaeology and the New Testament by Merrill F. Unger

Archaeology and the Old Testament by Merrill F. Unger

History and Christianity by John Warwick Montgomery

Reasons to Believe by R.C. Sproul

Present Testimony Ministry

1405 Valley Place

Brandon, FL 33510

Email: Fviola3891@aol.com

previous - next