Is
the Bible trustworthy?
This is a question that is asked right out of the gate
for many people when questioning the Christian faith, and rightfully so, since
the Bible is the source of Christian teaching and belief. If it is not trustworthy to be accurate in
all of its claims in every instance, then it is not a valid source of
information concerning God (read “General Knowledge and Revealed
Knowledge”). It’s also common knowledge
amongst people who are not Christians, that Christians call the Bible the Word
of God, thus giving it ultimate authority on all topics concerning God and who
he is and what he requires of us and what he has done for us (read “Law and
Gospel”). There can be many objections
to the Bible being the word of God, such as, men wrote it. Many people also claim that there are
contradictions and falsehoods in the Bible, thus, it’s not the word of God, and
often times these discrepancies within the biblical texts appear to be damaging
(these will be addressed later in this article). There are also other Gospels, such as the
Gospel of Thomas, which are not in the Bible, so it appears that men not only
wrote the Bible, but men selected which books would be in it and which ones
wouldn’t (Read “Why are some books in the Bible and others
aren’t?”).
The
Wrong Response:
Question: Why do you believe in the Bible?
Answer: Because it is the word of God.
Question: Why do you believe it is the word of God?
Answer: Because the Bible says it is the word of God.
Just because a text claims to be the word of God, it
does not mean it is. It’s bad to use
this line of answering for this question.
It really makes no sense. You
trust in the Bible because it is the word of God, and you trust it is the word
of God because the Bible told you so. This
is circular logic, and worst of all, the Bible is not the only book to claim to
be the word of God. This sort of answer
would then make the Qur’an the word of God, the Book of Mormon, and any other
false prophet’s words the word of God.
Response
#1: The Uniqueness of the Bible
This is not the best response to this question in terms
of evidence, but it is a response that should pique the interest of anyone
asking this question to read the Bible or to hear further responses.
No other book in the history of mankind is like the
Bible. It has forty authors, was written
across three continents, and over a span of many generations. Yet, the Bible has one consistent message
that does not contradict itself. No
other book can make this claim, and in particular no other sacred text can make
this claim.
This can be used to prove that it is trustworthy and
the word of God, because when in the history of mankind could you possibly find
an example of forty authors, across three continents, over a span of
generations, presenting one message concerning God? Nowhere.
The Qur’an contradicts the message of the Old Testament and New
Testament. The Buddha contradicted the
teachings of the Hindu Vedas and the Upanishads. The idea is that the uniqueness of the Bible
should indicate that God had to have been involved, and after all, if God
wasn’t wouldn’t it be impossible to get that many authors, across three
continents, over many generations, to agree on one message, especially given
the topic, God’s relationship with mankind.
The fact that no other book comes close to this feature
of the Bible should make one stop, and take note of its utter uniqueness and
consider reading it for this reason alone.
Admittedly however, this response falls short on hard evidence on why
this book should be trusted. Just
because a book is unique, does not make it true.
Response
#2: Fulfilled Prophesy
The Old Testament is full of prophesies that came true
after their writing.
For examples of these go to http://www.100prophecies.org/page8.htm.
Some would claim that others have predicted the future,
but all of their predictions did not come true, or their predictions were so
vague that they could represent numerous events in history, and in fact have
been interpreted to do so.
Response
#3: It’s the word of God. Read it and
see what you think.
Many people, who ask these questions, have never even
read the Bible, or if they have, only small portions of it. The response is simple. Have you read the Bible? If you haven’t read it, then how can you say
it’s not trustworthy?
The idea behind this response is that when the Bible is
just read, in openness to see the God it presents and the message it contains,
one will be confronted with the truth of God, and then either reject it or come
to faith in Christ. The scriptural
support for this is Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is living and active,
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of
spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of
the heart” (NIV).
My high school Sunday school teacher came to faith this
way. He began reading the Bible while in
the Navy out to sea during his night watches.
He started in Genesis and read to Revelation. His approach from the start was that he was
just going to read it as a story. By the
end, it wasn’t just a fictional story to him anymore.
A student from one of my classes told me a similar
story. She told her boyfriend that if
they were to continue dating, he would need to at least read the Bible. He did and now he is a Christian.
The
Best Response: The Historical Argument
If Christianity is true, if the Bible’s message is
real, then Jesus was God in the flesh on this earth. He was a historical person. How do we know anything about anyone or any
event in history? Pick a random person
in history and ask this question as your initial response to the question, “Why
do you believe the Bible’s message is true?”
It might take the person off guard, but just ask. The answer probably is because a book he or
she read in middle school taught him or her about that person or event. The question then is why trust that
book? Why trust any book about history,
especially ancient history? Thus begins
the historical argument for the reliability of the Bible’s historical
account . . .
The
Bibliographical Test
When considering a document’s historical reliability, a
bibliographical test is performed which consists of answering two questions:
1.
Has the document successfully come to us?
2.
Does it accurately portray the original
writing?
The answers to these questions are found in the number
of copies of the manuscript found and how close the dates of those copies are
to when the original manuscript was written.
Essentially, if there are a hundred copies of a manuscript and they all
contain the same text, besides some minute differences which do not affect the
overall message, and if those copies were made very close to the date the
original manuscript was written, then it would be safe to say that the copies
we have provide an accurate representation of what the original manuscript
would have been.
Here’s the break down for the bibliographical test for
the Bible:
1.
There are portions of copies that date back
to the second century.
2.
There are some 8,000 manuscripts in the
Latin Vulgate.
3.
There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.
4.
Codex Sinaticus is dated at 340 AD and
contains the entire New Testament
5.
The Bible has the best bibliographical
support than all other classical writings, in terms of numbers of copies and
the time removed from the original manuscript.
Aristotle, Plato, Caesar, Homer, and others – Do they
exist and are their writings reliable?
Very few manuscripts of
these ancient writers exist?
At best we have about 20 copies of most ancient manuscripts – and they are far
removed from their original date of authorship.
Look at the following site to see a chart at the bottom of the page that
illustrates the comparison between the Gospel accounts and other historical
works of antiquity: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
This all leads to the most confronting issue of all
concerning history. If the Bible has the
best bibliographical support, and it can’t be trusted to give an accurate
account of history, then on what grounds can any other documents of historical
antiquity be trusted? This is the confrontation
that has brought some historians and scholars to the Christian faith. It’s the same confrontation that brought C.S.
Lewis “kicking and screaming into the faith.” (I need to find the source and
verify this quote) This historical dilemma is best explained by using John
Warrick Montgomery’s famous statement:
“To be skeptical of the
resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical
antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as
well attested in bibliography as the New Testament.” – John Warrick Montgomery
from Law and Christianity
The historical argument does not end here. More can be added to this argument. Once the bibliographical test shows that the
Gospel accounts as we have them are accurate representations of the original manuscripts,
there are further tests that can be conducted to test the reliability of their
content. These are the internal and
external tests to see what the documents say and claim about their own
reliability and nature and also what contemporary sources at or near the time
of the manuscripts claim about their reliability.
Eye
Witness Accounts
Consider investigating urban myths and their
reliability. Urban myths are usually
told by people who heard of an account that happened to their friend’s sister’s
boyfriend’s aunt’s co-worker’s cousin.
How reliable is that account? Did
it ever actually happen, especially when you hear of the account again, but through
some other obscure means? Have you ever
actually met someone who personally knew someone who had their kidneys removed
and woke up in a tub of ice with a note saying, “Call 911”? Have you ever met anyone who personally
witnessed someone get their finger pricked by an HIV infected needle left
inside a payphone booth? The answer is
no, and that’s why urban myths are called myths.
Anytime events of the past are attempted to be put
together accurately in a court of law to find out what was said or what
happened at a particular time and location, the testimony of eyewitnesses are
always the most credible. Within the
Gospel accounts and the epistles of the New Testament, the authors claim to be
eyewitnesses. This gives their accounts
much credibility. Also, within their
accounts, they claim that what they’re telling is the truth. Luke even records that he investigated and
interviewed witnesses in recording his Gospel account.
Here are some verses that support the self-proclaimed
eye witness testimony found within the New Testament books:
John 19:1-4
1 John 1:1-2
Luke 1:1-4
Galatians 1:11-12
2 Peter 1:16
No
Motif to Fabricate
Just because the disciples claim to be eyewitnesses, it
doesn’t mean that what they claim about Jesus is true. Eyewitnesses can always lie, and they can
even lie about being eyewitnesses. They
could have made up Jesus’ teachings about being God, or lied about his
miracles, or had some clever scheme in which they stole the body of Christ and
concocted a Messiah tale. The problem is
what motif would the disciples have had to go through that effort.
Inventing or faking a Messiah myth and passing it off
as reality could reap some monetary benefits and give them positions of power
and authority, but that’s not what they received. The apostles and the people who believed in
the Gospel they were spreading received nothing in the way of earthly riches,
power, or prestige.
They were jailed – Acts 12.
They were stoned – Acts 7.
They were persecuted – Acts 8.
They were thrown to the lions in the arenas, burned as
tiki torches in the garden of an emperor, crucified, exiled, beat, poor,
homeless, and etc.
In fact, eleven out of the 12 apostles were martyred
for their faith. With this in mind,
there was no reason for them to fabricate the resurrection or the rest of the
Jesus biography they were spreading throughout an unwelcoming world of
paganism. Beyond having no reason to
fabricate their account, they would have had no reason to uphold the lie when
their lives were put on the line. Of
course some people might say that Islamic suicide bombers go to the death all
the time for a lie, but that’s a different scenario. Islamic suicide bombers are dying for what
they believe to be true. The apostles
on the other hand, if they had made up the resurrection, would have died for
something they would have known to be false, since they were the ones to create
the lie.
Written
Amongst Contemporaries (both friend and foe)
Eye witness testimony is not always accurate. The only way to be certain if a testimony is
correct or not is to take multiple eye witness accounts and compare their
data. If they all paint a similar scene
or scenario, then the testimony can be trusted, especially if both friends and
foes of the party in question provide the same testimony.
This is the case with the Gospel accounts. They were written amongst contemporaries of
Jesus, both friend and foe. Time and
time again, no matter who is recording the life of Jesus, a similar picture
arises. He was a Jew who had a great
following and he was known for his teachings, performed miracles, and his
missing body from his tomb. All sides of
the Jesus fence deliver a very similar account.
If the Gospel accounts were false, that Jesus’ body
wasn’t missing on that Sunday morning, then any of the other contemporaries of
Jesus could have squashed the story the apostles were preaching. They could have easily produced a body, but
they didn’t. They could have pointed out
all the holes in the apostles’ account, but no one did that, friend or
foe. And Jesus had many foes who would
have liked to have had a stone-cold, dead, false Messiah, such as the Romans,
the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. All we
get is testimony from Jews and Romans that match the testimony of the
apostles.
Kenneth Samples in his book Without a Doubt lists ten historical sources outside of the Bible
that portray Jesus and his life in accounts that synch up with the Gospel
accounts. Here is the list from Without a Doubt:
Tacitus (ca. AD 55-120): Roman historian, Annals
Suetonius (ca. AD 120): Roman historian, Life of Claudius
Josephus (ca. AD 37-97): Jewish historian, Antiquities
Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 112): Roman governor, Epistles X
Jewish Talmud (commentary on Jewish law, completed AD 500)
Toledoth Jesu (reflects early Jewish thought, completed fifth century AD)
Lucian (second century AD): Greek satirist
Thallus (ca. AD 52): Samaritan-born historian, Histories
Mara Bar-Serapion (ca. AD 73): Letter
Phlegon (ca. AD 80): historian, chronicles (mentioned by Origen)
Every author and his piece of work which collaborates
the apostles’ accounts would be considered external evidence. This is good to mention with anyone
questioning the Bible’s trustworthiness.
The truth of history concerning Jesus is not just pinned on the Gospels,
but there is external support outside of the Bible that verifies the Gospel
accounts.
There’s
so much more…
There’s even more to add to this historical argument,
such as the date in which the Gospels were written down was near enough to the
life of Jesus that not enough time had passed for myths to have crept into the
Gospel accounts. And of course this
wouldn’t have happened, because they were written by eyewitnesses, but in
addition to this the writing of the Gospels doesn’t match the style of
mythological Greek stories.
The Gospels also have specific details which wouldn’t
be included if they were making the story up, such as years of certain leaders
or events to date events in Jesus’ life, exact locations of miracles, and
specific names of individuals involved in their narrative that would have been
well-known enough to track down to verify or deny the Gospel account. If you are making a story up, you don’t add
specific details that can be verified or proven wrong.
The Gospels also contain damaging material, such as
Peter’s denial of Christ three times, the apostles hiding in fear after Jesus’
death, while women disciples found the empty tomb, which is also damaging
material since women, were not considered to be trustworthy witnesses at that
time and place in history. The fact that
damaging material was retained is an indication that the Gospel writers cared
more about presenting the truth than the image of themselves in the actual
accounts.
Conclusion
Any four of these responses, the uniqueness of the
Bible, fulfilled prophecy, the just read it defense, or the historical
argument, are all great answers that might help someone who is questioning why
the Bible is trustworthy to pick the Bible up and actually read it. The next step in the conversation would be to
encourage a seeker to look at who Jesus is in the Gospel accounts and what he
taught and did during his lifetime. To
read on this topic, go to “Is Jesus really God?”
By: Andy Wrasman