Reliable, Relative or Ridiculous

Can We Trust the Bible?

One of the most significant of all themes to the Christian is that of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. The truths concerning God, Christ and salvation are surely of supreme importance. But how can we get to know these truths if it is not by means of the Scriptures themselves?

RENE PACHE, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

The words I read felt like a rockslide plummeting down on me, with each word taking an emotional toll. I was sitting in the recliner in our family room, surrounded by books arguing against the reliability of the Bible. Although I had come far in my faith since that day in the chapel, the accumulated force of the downpour threatened to bury me in self-doubt.

   I felt a jumble of anger and fear. Could it really be possible that the Bible was nothing more than an unreliable copy of religious propaganda written by impostors who knowingly invented its contents out of a mixture of elaborate legends and thin air? Could it really just be a collection of books

Page 61

randomly chosen by a group of fallible men who imposed them on others? How could these authors say such things about the book that had shaped my entire life? And how did I know that what they said wasn't true?

   What are some criticisms you have encountered about the Bible?

   From whom have you heard them, and what effect have they had on you?

   What would be your response to someone struggling with questions about the reliability of the Bible?

Truth or Tall Tales?

If our search for truth has led us to consider the God of Christianity, then it only make sense to take a close look at the book on which Christian beliefs are founded. Belief in the Bible as inspired revelation from God has been at the heart of historic Christianity. But in light of modern scholarship, is it really possible to still believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture? Is the Bible historically reliable? Where did the Bible come from? How do we know that the books included are the right ones? Do our modern versions accurately reflect the original texts? And does this book really show signs of being divinely inspired?

   List the claims the Bible makes about itself in these verses: Matthew 5:18; 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:16-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1-3.

A Quick Review

The Bible was written by more than forty authors, including kings, priests, fishermen and peasants, over hundreds of years, with each book functioning separately within its time frame as well as collectively with the other books as they came to be included.

It was written using three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

The Bible contains a variety of literary genres popular in their author's day, such as historical accounts, prophecies, parables, letters, songs and proverbs. Some books also incorporated information from earlier written or oral sources, like existing poems or historical accounts.

Page 62

The thirty-nine Old Testament books include accounts of events from creation to about 450 years before the birth of Christ. Some debate exists about when some of the books were written, but most scholars agree the majority were written sometime between 1500 and 200 B.C.

In addition to the books of the Old Testament, Catholic and Orthodox traditions recognize an additional fourteen books (or portions of books), which often are called the Apocrypha. The majority of these books were written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100 and focus on events in that period.

The twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written in the first century A.D. and include accounts of events surrounding Jesus' life and the establishment of the church, as well as letters of instruction and encouragement from early church leaders.

   How important do you believe the issue of the trustworthiness of the Bible should be for a person considering the Christian faith? Explain.

Is This Really the Book God Would Have Sent?

I wince to admit this, but it's true. My feelings toward the Bible have often oscillated between adorations and aggravation. I have wrestled with many questions regarding the Bible and still do. One of the most basic has been more of a gut-level objection rather than a scholarly issue. It feels sacrilegious to even voice this question, but sometimes I have wondered if God couldn't have done a better job on the Bible. I mean, if I were God and going to send a book this size to tell all I needed to tell to humanity, is this conglomeration of information what I would have included?

   Sometimes it is hard to understand why the Bible spends so much space on extensive genealogies, cryptic stories rooted in historic cultures destined for extinction, and meticulous descriptions of the wealth of kings and the decor of long-gone temples — and then leaves us without definitive statements on important doctrinal issues that have spawned much division in church history. Why so much historically rooted material subject to confusion in later generations? Why a patchwork of history, instruction,

Page 63

poetry, proverbs and prophecy all jumbled together? Why not just clear, concise, chronological instruction with comprehensive coverage of timeless principles in clearly titled and indexed chapters?

   When I finally voiced this question to a Christian mentor, I found I was not alone. My mentor admitted she had silently entertained the same question. And since then I've encountered others who have also admitted to wondering the same thing. But I had never heard any Christian speaker or writer address this question until I stumbled onto a short section in Brian McLaren's book Finding Faith, which helped me think about this issue in a new light.

   McLaren answers these questions by asking another: if God is having a story unfold in history, how else could it be? Wouldn't it have to come piecemeal from those involved in the events, still too close to have an orderly, distant perspective? And even if God were going to have the accounts edited into a more "acceptable" form, for whom would he edit them: for scientific rationalists or poets, for progressive people or those steeped in traditions, for philosophers or for farmers?

Would it really  be better for us to have the story rehashed and "sanitized" so we like it more readily and accept it more easily? Or is there some benefit to getting it gritty, breathless, and warm from the lips of those who were there, told in their idioms, through the lenses of their cultures — leaving the job of interpretation and application for our myriad and dynamic settings up to us? BRIAN MCLAREN1

   If God wants us to dig deep into his revelation, so it captivates, inspires and transforms us, can we really expect it to be free of challenges and mysteries? If the Bible describes amazing events only experienced a few times in history, can we really expect it to explain these realities in simple, comprehensive language? Would it really be preferable to have a cool reportage of facts and theological discourse? Or would it not be better to see the astonishment, feel the struggle and be continually drawn closer to God in our search for increased understanding?

   What are some specific Bible passages or characteristics you have struggled with and why?

   Do the insights touched on here help you with these? If so, in what way?

Page 64

How Do We Know the Right Books Are Included?

A good friend of mine went to college a Christian and came home an agnostic. When we discussed the reasons for her change in view, she said that it was learning in one of her classes that the Bible is just a collection of books arbitrarily chosen by a committee of pompous clergymen that first fueled her doubts about Christianity.

   This issue of what books are included in the Bible concerns what scholars call the canon of Scripture — its authoritative list of contents. And it is a subject I have sometimes struggled with as well. To be truthful, when looking at some of the people who have risen to authority in the church, I'm not sure I am ready to trust some obscure clergymen who lived hundreds of years ago to tell me what books I should consider divine. But when I look into the subject for myself, this popular theory of the compilation of the Bible doesn't do justice to the whole story.

The Canon of the Old Testament

The Protestant Old Testament includes the same documents as the Hebrew Scriptures. The only difference lies in the arrangement and division of the books. Many of these documents were recognized as authoritative divine revelations very early after they were written. And evidence indicates that rather than being the result of an authoritative pronouncement, the Hebrew canon grew out of a gradual accumulation of these books generally recognized as being inspired.

   The details of the timeline are subject to some debate. But all scholars agree that at least the first five books of the Old Testament were fully recognized as Scripture by five hundred years before the birth of Christ, and some believe much earlier. Although many have proposed that some of the other books were added as later as a gathering of Jewish scholars in Jamnia around A.D. 90, evidence suggests that the entire Hebrew canon was well known and accepted much earlier than this.²

   One strong attestation to this is a passage from the Jewish historian Josephus, written around the same time as the gathering at Jamnia: "We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two, containing the record of all time, which have been justly believed to be divine .... For though so long a time has now passed, no one had dared to add

Page 65

anything to them, or take away from them, or to alter anything in them" (italics added).³ Josephus then proceeds to give a summary of these books that appears to indicate the same ones recognized today (although the division and order is different).

   The primary basis for the Christian acceptance of the Hebrew Scriptures is Jesus' own attitude toward the Old Testament as seen in the Gospels. From these accounts we find that although Jesus often disagreed with the religious leaders on the meaning of Scripture, he did not disagree with them regarding which books the Hebrew Scriptures should include or the authority they should be given. Additionally, the New Testament writers repeatedly refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative and inspired.

   For me this brought the question of the Old Testament canon down to whether I believed the New Testament is a reliable account of Jesus' life and whether I believed Jesus was who the Gospels claim he was. (Those questions are discussed in chapter seven.) If I came to believe these things, my questions about the books of the Old Testament would be largely resolved.

The Old Testament Canon in Jesus' Day

   Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51. Jesus confirms the Hebrew canon when he tells the Jews they will be responsible for all the righteous blood that has been shed "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah." Abel is the first martyr recorded in the Hebrew order of the Scriptures and Zechariah is the last.

   Luke 24:44. Jesus says, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Many scholars believe he is specifically indicating the three divisions of the complete Hebrew Bible: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (here probably called the Psalms because it is the first and largest book of the third section).

   Read the following verses and note what they reveal about the views of Jesus and the New Testament writers concerning the Hebrew Scriptures: Matthew 5:17-18;  22-29; Luke 24:25-27,44; Romans 1:2; 15:4; 2 Peter 1:20-21.

   What are your thoughts concerning the Old Testament canon?

Page 66

The Canon of the New Testament

As with the Old Testament, the formation of the New Testament canon was a gradual process marked by general recognition of the authority and authenticity of books rather than an edict made by one specific council. After Jesus' life, his disciples began spreading the message about his words and deeds, and churches began to spring up throughout Rome and its territories. Originally the disciples' teachings were passed on orally, but after a few decades they began to be written down by the disciples and those closely associated with them.

   Modern scholarship confirms that most, if not all, of the New Testament documents were written by the end of the first century. As each document came into experience, it was copied and circulated among the churches. Evidence suggests that the authority the early churches placed on the New Testament derived from the authority of the apostles, whom they believed Jesus had commissioned to carry on his work. The New Testament texts were viewed as being on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures very early in their existence. This is especially apparent in the fact that in 2 Peter 3:16 Paul's letters are already referred to as "Scriptures," as is Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18.

   Because of geographic distance, there was sometimes a lag in acceptance of some of the lesser-known books in remote areas. But translations we have from A.D. 170 used by the extreme eastern and western branches of the church indicate general agreement about the canon even in these areas by this time.⁴ (They include all the same books we recognize today with the exception of 2 Peter.) The first official churchwide ruling on the canon of the New Testament wasn't until A.D. 397. This ruling confirmed the twenty-seven books already generally recognized.

   When I was thinking through these things, the emphasis the church placed on the authority of the apostles made sense to me since their teaching was the closest anyone could hope to get to Jesus' own instruction. It also seemed reasonable to believe that if Jesus really was who he said he was, he would use the church and leaders he commissioned to safeguard a record of his life and teachings for future generations. So I realized that if I concluded the Gospel accounts are a reliable record of Jesus' life and deeds, this would settle many of my questions about the New Testament canon as well.

Page 67

   What are your thoughts concerning the canon of the New Testament?

What About the Apocrypha?

   The Old Testament Apocrypha. Between 300 B.C and A.D 100, Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt, completed a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint. In addition to the recognized Hebrew books, a number of other Jewish documents came to be included in this translation. These additional documents make up what is now commonly called the Apocrypha. Since the Septuagint was the translation used most often by the early church, the debate about whether the Apocrypha should be considered part of Scripture rose early in church history. Although the books of the Apocrypha were well respected among first century Jews, they were never officially included as part of their Scriptures, and neither Jesus nor any of the New Testament writers refer to these documents as inspired.

   The New Testament Apocrypha. Additionally, some refer to a number of books that grew up around the New Testament writings as the New Testament Apocrypha. These include a wide assortment of documents, written in the second and third centuries A.D., which claim to be additional gospels and acts and letters of the apostles. In regard to these writings R. K. Harrison explains, "Comparative studies have shown without doubt that the New Testament apocryphal writings preserve at best a series of debased traditions about the Founder and teachings of early Christianity. At worst, the narratives are entirely devoid of historical value and in some respects are totally alien to New Testament spirituality."⁵

Do Our Bibles Say the Same Things as the Original Did?

A few years ago a fellow writer called me, beside himself with frustration. Although an editor's work on a book is usually wonderfully transparent and beneficial, my friend had just received his manuscript back from his publishers and, without permission, the copyeditor had completely rewritten one of the chapters, even including a quote from herself under the guise of one of the author's resources.

   Although I understood my friend's frustration and agreed the copyeditor

Page 68

had stepped out of line, when I thought about it I could understand the copyeditor's motivation. Have you ever tried to recount a story exactly as it was told to you without adding personal commentary? We humans seem to have an insatiable desire to comment and amend.

   This human tendency has sometimes made me wonder if we can really trust our modern Bibles, considering they have been passed down to us through myriad copies and translations. How do we know that scribes before the days of the printing press didn't edit the text or change it to reflect their own theology? How do we know the Bible we have today is not just an obscure reflection of the original?

   The Old Testament. When I looked into these questions, I found that belief in the reliability of the Old Testament text is primarily based on three things.

1.  The reverence the Jews demonstrated in copying their Scriptures. The Jewish people's attitude toward their Scriptures can be seen in the passage from the Jewish historian Josephus already mentioned, which testifies that "for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to [the Scriptures], or take anything from them, or to make any change in them."⁶ The Jews held the Hebrew Scriptures in such high regard that a specific class of people developed whose primary responsibility was to preserve and copy the texts. These scribes adhered to an intricate system of rules to ensure accuracy of transmission."⁷

2.  The witness of early manuscript families and translations. All manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures currently available to us demonstrate widespread agreement regardless of who prepared them or where they were found. This conformity is even present in translations of the text into such diverse languages as Arabic, Latin, Armenian and Greek. If large-scale changes had been gradually introduced into the text, these diverse families of manuscripts separated by years and geographic distance should have revealed them.

3.  The confirmation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of over eight hundred manuscripts found in the Judean desert in the 1940s, dating back to the second and third century B.C. Before this discovery the earliest copies of the Old Testament we possessed were from around A.D. 900. The Dead Sea discovery afforded scholars a rare opportunity

Page 69

to compare the texts we had with texts a thousand years closer to the originals, taking us back to perhaps within two hundred years of the completion of the youngest book in the Hebrew Bible.

   When the texts were compared, the manuscripts gave overwhelming support to the reliability of the textual transmission. As Randall Price, author of Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, writes, "We can say and say with greater confidence than ever based on the witness of the Scrolls — that our present text is accurate and reliable, and that nothing affecting the doctrine of the original has been compromised or changed in any way in the manuscript copies.⁸

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered... were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent the text.... The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. GLEASON L. ARCHER9

   Do you believe we have reason to trust that the Old Testament text has faithfully been passed down to us? Why or why not?

   The New Testament. Because of the overwhelming number of early copies, translations and quotations we have the New Testament documents, the case for the reliability of its textual transmission is fairly straightforward. The New Testament was one of the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity. About six thousand manuscripts of the New Testament or portions of it in its original language are still in existence today and over nineteen thousand copies of early translations — far more than of any other ancient Greek work.

   Forty of the Greek manuscripts date back to before A.D. 300, with several dating to the second century — including a portion of John from around A.D. 110. Additionally, nearly the entire text of the New Testament can be reconstructed from quotations in other works from the second and third centuries. Because of this multitude of manuscript evidence, the reliability of today's New Testament text is established on extremely strong grounds.

Page 70

   Do you believe that the textual transmission of the New Testament can be trusted? Why or why not?

   Variants. This is not to say that there are not some differences among manuscripts of both Old and New Testament texts. The most common differences involve small unintentional changes such as

confusing letters similar in appearance

writing a word twice or skipping a word

writing a homonym or synonym instead of the original word

misspellings

   But some intentional changes can be found in manuscripts as well, such as the following:

revision of grammar and spelling

harmonization of similar passages

elimination of difficult passages

modifications to support a certain theological bent

At present, we have more than six thousand manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers.... Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. PHILIP W. COMFORT10

   Most variants can be traced back to the original text through manuscript comparison. This leaves relatively few points where scholars have any question regarding which reading represents the original, and in most of these cases the difference in the text is minor. In fact, no significant biblical teaching is affected by any questionable variant. Additionally, most modern study Bibles contain notes that alert readers of any passage in which there is a question.

   What are your thoughts on the fact that there are variants among Bible manuscripts?

Examples of Significant Variants

   A copy of Samuel found among the Dead Sea Scrolls includes a short passage previous to 1 Samuel 11:1 describing the oppressive deeds of Nahash, king of Ammon.

   Among the eight Dead Sea Scrolls copies of Jeremiah found, two were made up of

Page 71

a shorter version with some differences in sequence, sentences and names.

   In the best Greek manuscripts the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:13) does not include the words "For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."

   Mark 16:9-20 is not included in the most reliable manuscripts.

   Most early manuscripts do not contain the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11

What About the "Proof" That the Bible Is an Unreliable Fraud?

Even knowing all this, sometimes when I go to the library or bookstore I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of books arguing against the reliability of the Bible. But when I'm feeling like this, it helps to force myself past the sheer numeric intimidation and carefully examine the specific arguments offered. Often when I have done so, I have found the "proofs" in these books manifest some general tendencies that strip them of their power.

   Questionable assumptions. Many of these books are based on two questionable assumptions. The first is that all honest scholars came to the conclusion long ago that the Bible cannot be what it claims to be, and the second is that all supernatural knowledge and events are impossible. Many don't even intend their books to provide proof that the Bible is unreliable. They only aim to support their own theory on how the Bible developed, since it obviously can't be a supernatural revelation as it claims.

   Undue significance placed on insignificant details. Accepting the assumption that the Bible is not what it claims to be opens the door to a multitude of conjecture. One author argues that the Gospel of Luke was not written by Luke but by a non-Jewish woman far removed from the actual events portrayed.¹¹ His case is based solely on the prominence given Gentiles and women in Luke's Gospel. But who's to say that a Jewish man — perhaps even the doctor we know as Luke — might not be more sympathetic toward women and Gentiles than most in his generation, especially if he was being influenced by God's Spirit.

   Unwarranted expectations placed on the text. Why do the Gospels often phrase Jesus' teaching in different words? Why do the details in two accounts of the same incident often differ? Why does the Bible speak of the

Page 72

sun's rising when science has shown that the earth actually moves around the sun? Some critics base their arguments on questions such as these that reflect unjustified expectations. In the days before tape recorders, writers were not expected to concern themselves with exact quotation. It only makes sense that different eyewitnesses would highlight different details when recounting an event. And wouldn't it be expected that the Bible would use the common idioms of the day to communicate?

   Overstatement. These books often overstate their case, presenting their material as if there were no evidence to support traditional views of the authorship and dating of the books of the Bible. But this isn't true. Many respected scholars after careful study have reported findings in support of the reliability of the Bible.

   Do you agree that the arguments of Bible critics often contain these fallacies? Why or why not?

The Pearl of Great Price

It is not enough, of course, to clear away gut-level objections to the authority of the Bible, understand how it was decided which books to include, investigate the trustworthiness of the text and uncover discrepancies in critics' arguments, although these are important starting points. The real question is whether this book is a divinely inspired revelation to humanity. Some of the Bible critics' arguments are easily dismissed, but others raise tough questions. How can we know this book is from God?

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. MATTHEW 13:45-46

   These questions challenged me, even as I was writing this chapter, to consider more seriously than ever why I am willing to base my entire life on this one book. It comes down to five areas of evidence that form the foundation for my reliance on the Bible as God's Word. They can be summarized in the acronym PEARL.

   Prophecy. The Bible contains numerous fulfilled prophecies that attest to

Page 73

its supernatural origin.

   Experience. In my own life and in the lives of those around me, I have experienced the power and truthfulness of the Bible.

   Archaeology. The findings of archaeology have repeatedly substantiated the Bible, attesting to its historical reliability.

   Resurrection. When  I study the claims for the resurrection of Christ, I find no other explanation for the evidence except that Christ really rose from the dead.

   Logic. The Bible offers logically satisfying answers to the questions raised by the nature of humanity and the existence of the world, as no other philosophy I have encountered does.

   The previous two chapters discussed the last of these in detail — how the Bible offers satisfactory answers to the questions logic raises about the world around us and about human nature. The next four chapters will discuss the others, beginning with the area that is most convincing to me — the evidence for the resurrection.

   If the elements of PEARL can be shown to be true, do you believe this would substantiate the Bible's claims about itself? Why or why not?

   If the elements of PEARL are valid, can you think of any reason the Bible shouldn't be considered a trustworthy revelation? Explain.

Digging Deeper

   The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988). Bruce offers a detailed discussion of the formation of the Old and New Testament canons.

   The Origin of the Bible, Philip Wesley Comfort, ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1992). This collection of essays serves as a broad introduction to such areas

Page 74

as canon, Apocrypha, authority and inspiration, and reliability of transmission and translation.

   Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence by Paul Barnett (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986). An easy-to-read examination of the argument for the reliability of the New Testament.

Chapter Seven  ||  Table of Contents