Introduction
Repeat two goals of this series. OBJECTION #2: This is a valid question.
Christianity asks people to stake their lives on the truth claims of Jesus
Christ, which are found in the Bible. Certainly, it is appropriate to
want some evidence that the record of these claims is reliable.
The prevailing view in our culture today is that the Bible has been discredited
as such a record, and that therefore educated, thinking people cannot
trust its claims because this involves resorting to "blind faith."
How has this view developed? There are two main answers:
Non-Christian professors commonly declare this as dogma and/or imply
it by their comments about the Bible being primitive, full of contradictions
and errors, etc. Since most people form their beliefs by osmosis from
sources they respect, students usually emerge from secular universities
with this view.
Unfortunately, Christians often respond to this objection in ways that
are unhelpful, so that this objection is confirmed rather than overcome.
"The Bible must be reliable because it claims to be God's Word."
This is circular reasoning: the conclusion is stated as a premise.
Also, what about other scriptures which make the same claim, but which
contradict the truth-claims of the Bible?
"The Bible's claims about Jesus are true in spite of the fact
that it is full of errors in other matters." (NEO-ORTHODOXY;
NEO-EVANGELICAL PARTIAL INERRANCY) If the Bible doesn't speak reliably
in the areas in which it can be tested, why should we believe it in
the areas in which it can't be tested?
"The Bible is God's Word because it makes me feel close to God,
it helps my life, etc." This is something, but it can't be adequate
by itself, because similar reports and conclusions are drawn about
scriptures which contradict the Bible.
I propose to respond to this objection by breaking it down into three
sub-questions about the Bible's reliability . . .
Has the Bible been transmitted accurately?
WHY IMPORTANT: How can it possibly be a reliable source of spiritual
truth if we are unable to determine what it said?
MISCONCEPTION: Its contents have been so distorted by oral transmission
and sloppy copyists through the centuries that we can have no assurance
that what we now possess even approximates what was originally written
(2ND GRADE TEACHER TELLING STORY AROUND CIRCLE).
RESPONSE: The evidence shows that the Bible has been transmitted accurately
in a way far surpassing any other ancient work.
OLD TESTAMENT (composed 1400-400 BC)
There are a fairly small number of extant Hebrew manuscripts because
the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts,
because many manuscripts were destroyed through their turbulent history,
and because after the text was standardized (Massoretic) by 6th cent.
AD, all manuscripts which deviated from it were eliminated. However:
Other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) writings evidence a painstaking
care in copying any important documents. K. A. Kitchen cites an Egyptian
funerary papyrus of about 1400 BC states: "(The book) is completed
from its beginning to its end, having been copied, revised, compared
and verified sign by sign."[1]
Because of their reverence for scripture, Jewish scribes exercised
extreme care in making new copies of the Old Testament. The number
of letters, words and lines were counted, and the middle letters of
the Pentateuch and whole Old Testaments were determined. If a single
mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript was destroyed. Josephus,
a Jewish historian of the 1st century AD, said: "We have given
practical proof of our reverence for our own scriptures. For, although
such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add,
or to remove, or to alter a syllable."[2]
Striking evidence of this accuracy of transmission is found by the
Dead Sea Scrolls (1947). Prior to their discovery, our earliest copies
and fragments dated to around 1000 AD - fully 1400 to 2400 years after
they were written. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies of virtually
the whole Old Testament which can be dated to 400 B.C. to 70 A.D. Opponents
predicted significant discrepansies between the DSS Old Testament and
the Massoretic text. But when the DSS were compared to these documents,
they were found to be virtually identical. This demonstrates the accuracy
of transmission between c. 200 BC and 1200 AD.
World-renowned Old Testament scholar W. F. Albright, says: "We
may rest assured that the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible, though
not infallible, has been preserved with an accuracy perhaps unparalleled
in any other Near Eastern literature."[3]
NEW TESTAMENT
The evidence for its accurate transmission is exceptional. We have
full copies dated to 325-350 AD, and fragments dated to within 120 AD.
The number of ancient copies available, the quality of those copies,
and the time span between them and the original documents is unsurpassed
among ancient documents. (SEE CHART)
F. F. Bruce: "The evidence for (the accurate transmission of)
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."[4]
John Warwick Montgomery: "To be skeptical of the resultant text
of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip
into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested
bibliographically as the New Testament."[5]
Sir Frederick Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the
British Museum and one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts:
"The interval between the dates of original composition and the
earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible,
and the last foundation for any doubt that the (New Testament has) come
down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.
Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the
books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."[6]
Does the Bible speak accurately in the areas in which it can be tested?
WHY IMPORTANT: Many of the central issues of spiritual truth lie beyond
direct verification (NATURE OF GOD; AFTERLIFE; WAY OF SALVATION). This
is why it is so important that these truth claims be connected to something
which can be tested (JESUS "SIGNS").
MISCONCEPTION: The spiritual truth claims of the Bible are unreliable
because it has been proven to be full of historical inaccuracies.
RESPONSE: Many of the best minds of history, recognizing the Bible's
vulnerability at this point have attempted to destroy its credibility
by demonstrating its historical inaccuracy. Although it was once confidently
assumed that archeology would prove the historical inaccuracy of the Bible,
this is far from the case. While we cannot say that archeology proves
the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archeological evidence
has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements.
OLD TESTAMENT
Scholars considered the Genesis account of Abraham (including Sodom
and Gemorrah) to be mythological or ahistorical. Ur was excavated
and shown to be a flourishing city around 2000 BC. The Ebla Tablets
include some of the kings mentioned in Gen. 14. Tell Mardikh
tablets mention Sodom and Gemorrah.
Scholars said Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because
the art of writing was virtually unknown in Israel prior to David's
time (1000 BC). The Ras Shamra Tablets date from 1400 BC. Ebla takes
this back to Abraham's time (2100 BC). Both show that writing was
well-advanced by this time.
Scholars said the Law of Moses could not have been developed earlier
than 5th century BC. But Hittite Suzerainty treaties (15th century
BC) bear remarkable similarity to the form of Mosaic Covenant. Also,
Hammurabi (1700 BC), Lipit-Ishtar (1860 BC), Eshnunna (1950 BC) refute
this claim.[7]
Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archeologist: "It may be stated
categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted
a biblical passage."[8]
NEW TESTAMENT
Most of the geographical details associated with the life of Jesus
have been substantiated. This includes places such as the Pool of
Siloam, the Pool of Bethesda, Jacob's Well, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum,
Cana, Chorazin, the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem, and the "Pavement"
(gabbatha) of Jn. 19:13.[9]
19th century critics claimed that Luke was a terrible historian.
They scoffed at his references to Lysanius as tetrarch of Abilene
(Lk. 3:1) and Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:7).
But excavations have proven both of these claims to be true. Sir
William Ramsay, who began his excavations to prove Luke to be untrustworthy,
concluded after years of study that "Luke's history is unsurpassed
in respect of its trustworthiness . . ."[10] and "Luke is a historian
of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy . . . this
author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."[11]
John W. Montgomery: “Careful comparison of the New Testament
with inscriptions & other early independent evidence has confirmed
their primary claims . . . Competent historical scholarship must regard
the New Testament documents as coming from the first century &
as reflecting primary-source testimony about the person & claims
of Jesus.”[12]
Does the Bible provide a unique means of authenticating its claim to
be God's Word?
WHY IMPORTANT: Since the Bible makes such a claim for itself (DIVINE
INSPIRATION), might we not expect it to produce some unique way of authenticating
its claim ("CREDENTIALS" STORY)?
RESPONSE: The Bible actually anticipates our need for such unique
authentication and provides its own means of authentication via fulfilled
prophecy. Consider these passages, which were written in a religiously
pluralistic, competitive environment.
Read Isa. 41:22-24; 44:6-8; 48:4,5. Such detailed knowledge of the
future would require either sovereignty over history or freedom from
constraints of time (or both)--i.e., deity.
Read Deut. 18:20-22. Old Testament prophets were required to
give verifiable (short-term, detailed) predictions--and they were to
be executed if they were wrong!
It was this kind of evidence to which the apostles referred when they
proclaimed that Jesus' death and resurrection was "according to the
scriptures" (Lk. 24:44-48; Acts 3:18,24; 17:2,3; 1 Cor. 15:3-5).
Because Jesus had no control over most of these events, purposeful fulfillment
was impossible. EXAMPLES:
Time (Dan. 9:24,25) - Over 500 years earlier, his death
was predicted to the year.
Birthplace (Micah 5:2) - Of course, Jesus had no control over
this.
Response of Jews (Isa. 53) - So detailed that prior to
DSS, many though it was a Christian forgery.
Mode of Execution (Ps. 22:1-18) - This was predicted several
centuries before crucifixion was invented.
Of all the "scriptures" of major religions, only the
Bible provides an objective means of authentication. Except for the Quran,
they don't claim to be revelation. The Quran is mere assertion.
Conclusion
SUMMARIZE: There is unsurpassed evidence that the Bible is a reliable
source of religious truth!! After answering such questions, you must
personalize the issue.
God doesn't give you this information for your entertainment, or to
stimulate your curiosity (though many start here).
God isn't satisfied with you only coming to the conclusion that the
Bible is inspired and that theism is the correct position (Satan shares
this conviction).
God wants you to listen to him and respond to him in
the way described in Isa. 55:2-3, 6-7.
Footnotes
[1]K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient
& the Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p. 140.
[2]Against Apion (Kregel,
1960), pp. 179,180.
[3]Cited in Gleason Archer, A
Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974),
p. 65.
[4]F. F. Bruce, The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 15.
[5]John W. Montgomery, History
and Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 29
[6]Sir Frederick Kenyon, The Bible
and Archeology (New York: Harper, 1940), pp. 288,289.
[7]Gleason Archer, A Survey of
Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), pp. 165-176.
[8]Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the
Desert (Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society, 1969), p. 31
[9]Kenneth Boa and Larry Moody, I'm
Glad You Asked (Wheaton, Victor Books, 1982), p. 82.
[10]Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing
of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1953), p. 222.
[11]Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul
the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1962), p.
81.
[12]John W. Montgomery, History
and Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 31,34.