(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This is part 4 of a 4 part series.  See:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

A. Introduction

Josh McDowell relates what happened after a ‘free-speech’ lecture outdoors at a university. A professor approached him (he had brought his literature class with him) and said,

“Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a second century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded.”

Josh replied, “Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date”.[1]

This professor was basing his opinions on the conclusions of German critic, F.C. Baur, who assumed that much of the N.T. was not written until late in the second century A.D.

However, 20th century archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of the N.T. manuscripts as FIRST CENTURY documents.

B. Some of the main N.T. manuscripts

In this final part of the series, I want to mention some of the main N.T. MSS that have been found along with endorsement from substantial historical and archaeological authorities.

¨The John Rylands papyrus fragment (in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England) was a significant find. It is the earliest known copy of any portion of the N.T. It dates from the first half of the second century, probably A.D.117-138. Written on both sides, it contains portions of 5 verses of John’s Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38). Although it’s only a small fragment, it has proved to be the closest and most valuable link in the chain of transmission. It tends to confirm the traditional date for the composition of John, before the end of the first century. [See photographs in Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 388]

•  The Bodmer Papyri (in Library of World Literature at Calagny, near Geneva) dates from about A.D. 200 or earlier. It contains 104 leaves of the Gospel of John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-14:26 and fragments of 40 other pages, John 14-21.
•  The Chester Beatty Papyri (in Beatty Museum near Dublin) consists of three codices and contains most of the N.T. It dates from about A.D. 250 or later. The University of Michigan owns (30 leaves.)[2]

We must not miss the two major MSS:

(1) Codex Vaticanus (B), dated about 325-350 [a codex is a book form on parchment or vellum (writing material made from animal skins)]. It contains most of the Septuagint (LXX) of O.T., most of the N.T., and the Apocrypha with some exclusions. It’s housed in the Vatican Library.

(2) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), dated about 340. Regarded as “the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions.”[3] It contains half of O.T., O.T Apocrypha, all of the N.T. except Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Epistle of Barnabas and large portion of Shepherd of Hermas. In 1933, British Government purchased it (from Russia) for 100,000 pounds for the British Museum.

(3) Codex Bezae (about 450 or 550) is the oldest known bilingual manuscript of the N.T. Written in both Greek and Latin. Contains 4 gospels, Acts, 3 John 11-15, with some omissions. It is in the Cambridge University Library.

C. What are the experts saying NOW?

Millar Burrows of Yale University says:

“Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri [discoveries] is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself.”[4]

William Albright, who was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist when he wrote this:

“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics today.”[5]

He explains further:

“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably some time between A.D. 50 and 75).”[6]

Sir William Ramsay is regarded by many as one of the greatest archaeologists of all time.

“He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude towards the Book of Acts began to change.”[7]

Sir William Ramsay concluded:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank… This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[8]

Josh McDowell says that “because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.”[9]

Even theologically liberal scholar, Dr. John A.T. Robinson came to the amazing conclusion that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[10]

Professor of ancient history, Paul L. Maier, writes:

“Arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth over a lengthy period of time or that the sources were written many years after the event are simply not factual.”[11]

Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University was one of the greatest authorities in the nineteenth-century on the law of evidence in the common-law world. He

“applied to these records [the Gospels] the ‘ancient documents’ rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are ‘fair on their face’ (ie. offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in ‘reasonable custody’ (ie. their preservation has been consistent with their content). He concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law“[12]

D. Testing the Bible and ANY other piece of literature from history

To show that the Bible is an accurate and trustworthy book, I submitted for  your consideration three tests:

• First: T –The Transmission Test,
• Second: I – The Internal Evidence Test,
• Third: E – The External Evidence Test.

There is a fourth: S: The Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God.

E. A BRIEF test of the Muslim’s Qur’an: Subjecting the Quran to the T.I.E.S. test

The Quran says that it is “infallible” [2:2] and “inspired.”

1. The Transmission Test

We run into unique difficulties when we submit the Quran to the “Transmission Test.” We can find stacks of manuscripts for the Bible, or parts of manuscripts, dating back to the second century after Christ. Muhammed lived from ca. A.D. 570-632.

“Although a standard Muslim claim says the Quran has no textual variations, this is in fact incorrect. No one original manuscript of the Quran ever existed, since Muhammed (c. 570-632 A.D.) didn’t write any of it. Instead various followers wrote scattered revelations on whatever material came to hand, including pieces of papyrus, tree bark, palm leaves and mats, stones, the ribs and shoulder blades of animals, etc. Otherwise, they memorized them. These [kinds of][14] materials were susceptible to loss: Ali Dashti, a Islamic statesman, said animals sometimes ate mats or the palm leaves on which Suras (chapters of the Quran) were written! After his death, Muhammad’s revelations were gathered together to eliminate the chaos. . . .

To solve the problems of conflicting memories and possibly lost or varying written materials, Caliph Uthman (ruled 644-56) had the text of the Quran forcibly standardized. He commanded manuscripts with alternative readings to be burned. But he didn’t fully succeed, since variations are still known to have existed and some still do. The Sura Al-Saff had 200 verses in the days of Muhammad’s later wife Ayesha, but Uthman’s version had only 52.

[Robert] Morey says Shiite Muslims claim Uthman cut out a quarter of the Quran’s verses for political reasons. In his manuscript of the Quran, Ubai had a few Suras that Uthman omitted from the standardized version. Arthur Jeffrey, in his Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, gives 90 pages of variant readings for the Quran’s text, finding 140 alone for Sura 2.[15]

The major problem with the Transmission Test for the Quran is that the Muslims are not interested in it. Allah revealed it to Muhammed and that’s good enough for them. They argue in circles:

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: The Quran says so.

I ask: Why is the Quran true?

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: Because the Quran says so.

I ask: But why is the Quran true?

Muslim: The Quran is without error.[16]

2. The Internal Evidence Test

This yields more fruitful information. The Quran claims it is [17]free from error, infallible [Sura 2:2][18] It claims that it Consummates All Scriptures[19] and is a continuation of the Bible.[20]

But look what we find?

a. Internal self-contradictions

The Quran claims that it is consistent and without ambiguity (Sura 39:23, 28).[21] BUT we find FOUR different versions (conflicting accounts) of how Muhammed received the Quran.[22] Muhammed says, “[53:4] It was divine inspiration.”

1. In Sura 53:2-18 and 81:19-24, Allah came to Muhammed in the form of a man with the message of the Quran.[23]

2. Sura 16:102 says it was the Holy Spirit who came to Muhammed with the message.[24]

3. Sura 15:8 says that the angels came down to Muhammed.[25]

4. The most popular version is that the angel Gabriel delivered the Quran to Muhammed (Sura 2:97).[26]

Which one was it? You can’t have infallibility, consistency, without ambiguity, and 4 different accounts of how Muhammed received the Quran.

b. Within the Quran you will find examples of:

• Convenient revelations.

“When Muhammed wanted his son-in-law’s wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah” declaring it was OK. Sura 33:36-38[27]

• Legendary Materials;[28]

• Arabian Sources;[29]

• Jewish Sources;[30]

• Heretical Christian sources — Gnostic gospels and their fables.

He has the baby Jesus speaking from the cradle, and Jesus making clay birds come alive (Sura 3:49; 100:110).[31]

• Eastern religious sources;[32]

There are major contradictions internally in the Quran.

3. The External Evidence Test

This is where we encounter major problems and I have only the time to give you the tip of the iceberg.

a. Errors in the Quran

• How many days of creation? Eight days (Sura 41:9-10, 12) — 4 days + 2 days + 2 days = 8 days.[33] The Bible says 6 days according to Gen. 1:31 and Ex. 20:11

• BUT, the Quran ALSO says creation took place in 6 days: [Sura 7:54][34]

• One of Noah’s son’s perished in the Great Flood (Sura 11:42-43)[35]

The Bible says that all 3 of Noah’s sons went into the Ark and were saved from the Flood (see Gen. 7:1, 7, 13).

• The Quran says that Noah’s Ark came to rest on the hills of Judea (Sura 11:44). The Bible says Mr. Ararat (Asia Minor, in Eastern Turkey), Gen. 8:4.

• Many mistakes about Abraham[36]

• The Quran says his father’s name was Azar [Sura 6:74][37] The Bible says it was Terah (Gen. 11:27)

• It was his son, Isaac, that Abraham went to sacrifice, but the Quran says that it was Ishmail [Sura 37:100-112].[38]

• Mistakes about Bible characters.

The Quran “refers to Goliath as Jalut, Korah as Karun, Saul as Talut, Enoch as Idris, Ezekiel as Dhu’l-Khifl, John the Baptist as Yahya, Jonah as Yunus, etc. Muhammed did not have access to the Bible because an Arabic translation of the Bible was not in existence at that time.”[39]

Mistakes about Mary, the mother of Jesus Concerning The Birth of Jesus, the Quran reads:

[19:22] When she bore him, she isolated herself to a faraway place.

[19:23] The birth process came to her by the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “(I am so ashamed;) I wish I were dead before this happened, and completely forgotten.”

[19:24] (The infant) called her from beneath her, saying, “Do not grieve. Your Lord has provided you with a stream.”

[19:25] “If you shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will drop ripe dates for you.”

• Mistakes from secular history:

In Sura 105, “Muhammed claimed that the elephant army of Abrah was defeated by birds dropping stones of baked clay upon them.”[40],[41]

BUT, “according to the historical record, Abrah’s army withdrew [its] attack on Mecca after small-pox broke out among the troops.”[42]

• Scientific problems

The sun setting in the ocean and found people there” [18:86][43]

• Mistakes about Jesus:

Jesus was NOT the son of God, Messiah (Sura 5:17);[44]

To say that Jesus was the son of God was to utter a blasphemy (Sura 9:30);[45]

Jesus was not crucified (Sura 4:157);[46]

He was NOT fully God and fully human. He was just a messenger and his mother, Mary, was a saint (Sura 5:75);[47]

“The utter contradiction between the biblical and quranic view of Jesus cannot be dismissed easily.”[48]

What can we conclude about the Quran?[49]

1. Devoted Muslims believe that the doctrines of Islam came from Allah and have a heavenly source;

2. Middle Eastern scholars have shown that the rituals and beliefs of Islam were there in Arabian culture BEFORE Muhammed had his supposed revelations.

3. Muhammed didn’t preach anything new. “Even the idea of ‘only one God’ was borrowed from the Jews and the Christians.[50]

4. This means that the religion of Islam is not revealed from heaven as it claims, but is an invented religion.

5. “Western scholars have concluded that Allah is not God, Muhammed was not his prophet and the Quran is not the Word of God.”[51]

If you want further information comparing the Bible and the Quran, I’d recommend these references:

1. “The Bible and the Qur’an: An Historical Comparison,” available at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents.htm (Accessed June 23, 2002)

2. “Is the Quran the Word of God?” available at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm (This is an excellent one by Jay Smith, Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, London, who has debated Muslims and has an active ministry among Muslims.)

3. The book, Islam Unveiled: The True Desert Storm, Robert A. Morey. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991.

For people to accept the Bible’s evidences, I put to you that there is a fourth dynamic, rather than a test.

F. Fourth Dynamic

“S” for the Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God

Go to the Bible and what do you find?

Ephesians 4:17-19: “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.”

• The non-Christians are futile in their thinking;

• They are darkened in their thinking;

• Because of their ignorance, they are separated from the life of God;

• A life of no sensitivity, sensuality, impurity, lust is their lifestyle. [Sounds like the rebels and abusers I deal with daily in my counselling work.]

What is it going to take to get these people interested in what the Word of God says about them, life abundantly in the here and now, and eternal life?

I Corinthians 2:14 gives some profound answers:

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

What is the Bible saying? Unless God opens the eyes of the unbelievers by His Spirit, the Word of God will be foolishness to them. They will not understand the Word. As we witness, as we share about the trustworthiness of the Word of God, we MUST pray that God will open the eyes of the unbeliever by the Holy Spirit.

I Cor. 12:3 says: “. . . no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (NIV).

This led John Calvin to write:

“The Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect. Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it. . . Christ, when he illumines us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time so engrafts us into his body that we become partakers of every good.”[52]

G. Where does this lead to?

Josh McDowell concludes, and I enthusiastically agree with him: There is “more evidence for the reliability of the N.T. than for almost any ten pieces of classical literature put together.”[53]

Let’s revisit and example I gave at the beginning of this 4-part series:

I said that I believe that the Bible is completely true. It is without error in all that it affirms. Not just in matters of faith and practice. If it speaks about history, science, counselling, marriage, family, sex, the nature of human beings, the nature of society, what’s wrong with our world, how to fix our country and the world, etc. — it gives us the truth about all of these matters. I believe that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms.

You might ask, “But surely you’re not referring to translations such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, etc.? You must be referring to the original manuscripts of the Bible and NOT modern translations.”

I say, “You are correct. I am referring to the originals. Scribes and translators have introduced some variations into later versions.”

You are justified in responding: “We don’t have the originals. You are convinced that some Bible documents that you have never seen (some hypothetical documents), some NT documents that NOBODY has seen for 2,000 years, are completely truthful. Sounds like you are living in fantasyland. Maybe the Mental Health Unit is the place for you.”[54]

How can I possibly state that the original MSS which I have never seen and nobody has EVER seen for about 2,000 years can possibly be true in everything that they affirm?

I trust that the answer to my statements has become clearer. We can reproduce the content of the originals on the basis of excellent MSS evidence. Evidence that is so good that it leaves the other MSS from history for dead. The evidence is outstanding.

Many people have developed arguments against the excellent Bible MSS that they would NOT raise concerning any other document from history.

Surely we are entitled to discuss things that we have never seen first-hand. I have never seen our Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Must I, therefore, assume that Kevin does not exist and that I cannot assess his policies.

I have never seen an atom, or black holes in the universe, or music on a tape, or the wind, or the life principle within me, etc.  I have never seen my own brain or anybody else’s brain.  Does that mean these do not exist?

All we are asking as believers in the Bible, is to use the standard methods for establishing the reality of any MSS from history and then evaluate those MSS. Surely you and I are entitled to evaluate these MSS. That is all I am asking for in evaluating the MSS of the Bible.[55]

Do you realise that even if we did not have such excellent MSS evidence, we could construct

“Almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John. Even if all the copies of the New Testament had been burned at the end of the third century, we could have known virtually all of it by studying these writings” from the early church leaders.[56]

Some believers back off from stating the teaching that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms (inerrancy) because they think it is unprovable when we don’t have the original inspired writings and this doctrine only applies to the original documents.

I enthusiastically support the conclusion of Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks:

“If we can be this certain of the text of the New Testament and have an Old Testament that has not changed in 2,000 years, then we don’t need the originals to know what they said. The text of our modern Bibles is so close to the original text that we can have every confidence that what it teaches is truth.”[57]

Let’s conclude:

• I have not been able to find any Bible verse that says that we MUST have a pure text of the Bible down through history;

• There’s a pile of evidence to show that the Bibles we have today, even translations, are “extremely close to the original, inspired manuscripts that the prophets and apostles wrote.”[58] We have excellent evidence to show that the Bibles of today represent the original MSS “with a very high degree of accuracy, like no other book from the ancient world.”[59]

• “Such reliability helps support [my] claim that the Bible is valuable as a historical account as well as a revelation from God.”[60]

• We can say with confidence: The Bible is God’s Word;

• This teaching comes with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. (I haven’t had the time to expound on that teaching);

• Jesus confirmed the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament and the promised New Testament.

Of the OT, Jesus said in John 10:35 that it is the “Word of God . . . and Scripture cannot be broken” (ESV). Luke 16:17 (ESV), “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.”

Of the soon to be written NT, Jesus said: John 14:26 (ESV), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” [See also John 16:13.]

“If Jesus, who is God in the flesh and always spoke the truth, said that the Old Testament was the Word of God and that the New Testament would be written by His apostles and prophets as the sole authorized agents for His message, then our entire Bible is proven to be from God. We have it on the best of authority — Jesus Christ Himself.”[61]

• Jesus and the apostles gave evidence that the Bible is without error (inerrant) in what it teaches about all matters;

• This is even “down to the tenses of verbs and the very last letters of words”;[62]

• The Bible you read in English today is God speaking to you.[63]

According to Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Jesus was very clear:

• One day you will give an account for your life;

• On that day, the crucial question will be, “What place did the REAL Jesus have in your life?”

• If what Jesus said is not true, if 80% of what he said was made up by the early church and didn’t even come from the mouth of Jesus;

• Then the sooner we conduct the funeral for Christianity the better;

• Down through the centuries, many have tried to do that and millions would like to do that today;

• If the words of Jesus are not true, we might as well bring pokies into the church buildings; make our auditoriums into bingo halls;

• Put the Bible into the museum;

• Christian workers, pastors, missionaries should STOP wasting their time;

HOWEVER, since Christ’s teaching is the truth, the Bible is reliable and trustworthy Word of God, we must take a very different view.The REAL Jesus, who lives in you and me and in the church, is the one who radically changes lives. He’s the Jesus of history, who is the SAME as the Jesus of faith.

There is a radical answer to those who come to see me who are rebels, destroying themselves and their families;

There’s a profound answer for the sexually abused, the drug addicted and the blasphemers;

There is NEW LIFE in Jesus Christ – radical new life.

We must KNOW and proclaim REAL Christianity and not that of radical, liberal heretics who only want us to believe 18% of what Jesus said.

I have presented what I believe are some solid reasons for accepting the Bible as a thoroughly trustworthy and reliable book from God to us. Some of you might have thought I was too intellectual. But please remember: God does not promise to reveal himself to us to satisfy intellectual curiosity. If you want to justify your unbelief, you will NEVER discover the God who is real, the Bible that is trustworthy, and the Christ of the cross who is the resurrected Lord.[64]

Conclusion

Dr Jim Kennedy tells the story of

• We should stop the persecution of Christians immediately because this Christianity is a FAKE.

“The man who fell off a cliff, and on his way down, he managed to grab a limb sticking out from the side of the earthen wall. He wasn’t a praying man, but he called out to God anyway and asked for help. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Just believe — and let go.’ He hesitated for a moment and then said, ‘Uh, is there anybody else up there?’

“The Christian faith doesn’t operate that way. It’s not a matter of looking for a God who requires the least of us or who simply sounds the best of all the choices. Our faith is rational and reasonable. It’s based on well-grounded facts of history. The apostle Peter sums it up by saying, ‘We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty’(2 Peter 1:16).”[65]

Please remember: It is only God by his Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the blind.

An unknown Christian said:

“This Book [the Bible] is the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding; its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable [i.e. unchangeable]. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s character. Here paradise is restored, heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. Follow its precepts and it will lead you to Calvary, to the empty tomb, to a resurrected life in Christ; yes, to glory itself, for eternity.”

“One measure of your love for God is your love for God’s Word”[66]

Appendix

A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so.

This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning. Nothing is proved by it. It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.

But there is no need to do this. Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead. This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God, that He claimed to be. If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17,18; 15:1-4) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

[Jesus “promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26).” So,

“we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.”[67]]

Note: The above 4 points are an abbreviated version taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:

1. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,

2. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.

4. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

5. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament.[68]

Notes

[1] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, pp. 41-42. Now available online at: http://www.blufftonchurch.com/Josh-McDowell-More-Than-A-Carpenter.htm (ch 4, ‘Are the Biblical Records Reliable?’)

[2] The above details are from Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968 [1986], pp 388-391.

[3] Ibid., p. 392.

[4] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones. New York: Meridian Books, 1956, p. 52, in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 42.

[5] William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. 136, in McDowell, ibid..

[6] William F. Albright, Christianity Today, Vol. 7, January 18, 1963, p. 3, in McDowell, ibid., p. 43.

[7] McDowell, ibid.

[8] Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222, in McDowell, ibid.

[9] McDowell, loc cit.

[10] Paraphrase of John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976, by McDowell, ibid., 43-44.

[11] Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story. New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 122, in McDowell, ibid., p. 45.

[12] John Warwick Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986, p.137, emphasis added. The full details are in Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984. The article, “The Testimony of the Evangelists” by Simon Greenleaf is in Montgomery, The Law Above the Law, Appendix, pp. 91-140. “This article examines the testimony of the evangelists by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice” (Montgomery, The Law…, n1, p. 149). The article is from the Soney & Sage (Newark, N.J.) edition of 1903.

[13] C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[14] The original said “disparate.”

[15] “Is the Bible the Word of God? Appendix A,” Eric V. Snow. Retrieved on June 23, 2002, from: http://www.rae.org/bibref.html

[16] Based on Robert A. Morey, Islam Unveiled. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991, pp. 126-127.

[17] Most of this information I obtained from, ibid., “A Scientific Understanding of the Quran, p.125ff.

[18] From An Authorized English Version of the Quran, translated from the original by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D. Retrieved on June 29, 2002, from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm, “The Heifer,” 2:2, “This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous.” All quotations from the Quran will be from this online edition.

[19] [2:89] When this scripture came to them [the Israelites] from GOD, and even though it agrees with, and confirms what they have . . .

[2:91] When they are told, “You shall believe in these revelations of GOD,” [the Quran] they say, “We believe only in what was sent down to us.” Thus, they disbelieve in subsequent revelations, even if it is the truth from their Lord, and even though it confirms what they have! Say, “Why then did you kill GOD’s prophets, if you were believers?”

[20] [2:136] Say, “We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and all the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters.”

[21] Sura 39:23 “GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent . .” Sura 39:28 “An Arabic Quran, without any ambiguity.”

[22] Morey, p. 141.

[23] [53:4] It was divine inspiration. [53:5] Dictated by the Most Powerful. [53:6] Possessor of all authority. From His highest height. [53:7] At the highest horizon. [53:8] He drew nearer by moving down. [53:9] Until He became as close as possible. [53:10] He then revealed to His servant what was to be revealed. [53:11] The mind never made up what it saw.

[24] “The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the submitters.”

[25] [15:7] “Why do you not bring down the angels, if you are truthful?”

[26] Sura 2:97: “Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD’s will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers.”

[27] [33:36] No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray.

[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, “Keep your wife and reverence GOD,” and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD’s commands shall be done.

[33:38] The prophet is not committing an error by doing anything that is made lawful by GOD. Such is GOD’s system since the early generations. GOD’s command is a sacred duty.

[28] See Morey, 143.

[29] Ibid., p. 144.

[30] Ibid.

[31] [3:49] As a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I come to you with a sign from your Lord – I create for you from clay the shape of a bird, then I blow into it, and it becomes a live bird by GOD’s leave. I restore vision to the blind, heal the leprous, and I revive the dead by GOD’s leave. I can tell you what you eat, and what you store in your homes. This should be a proof for you, if you are believers.

[32] Morey, p. 147;

[33] [41:9] Say, “You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe.” 41:10] He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four days, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants. . . [41:12] Thus, He completed the seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every universe. And we adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and placed guards around it. Such is the design of the Almighty, the Omniscient. Ibid.

[34] [Sura 7:54] “Your Lord [Allah] is the one GOD, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.” [10:3] “Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.”

[35] [11:42] As it sailed with them in waves like hills, Noah called his son, who was isolated: “O my son, come ride with us; do not be with the disbelievers.” [11:43] He said, “I will take refuge on top of a hill, to protect me from the water.” He said, “Nothing can protect anyone today from GOD’s judgment; only those worthy of His mercy (will be saved).” The waves separated them, and he was among those who drowned.

[36] Morey, p. 135.

[37] [6:74] Recall that Abraham said to his father Azar, “How could you worship statues as gods? I see that you and your people have gone far astray.”

[38] [37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.

[39] Morey, p. 137.

[40] Ibid., p. 139.

[41] [105:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[105:1] Have you noted what your Lord did to the people of the elephant? [My addition: the elephant army of Abrah.]

[105:2] Did He not cause their schemes to backfire?

[105:3] He sent upon them swarms of birds.

[105:4] That showered them with hard stones.

[105:5] He made them like chewed up hay.

[42] Morey, p. 139. His footnote reference is: Alfred Guillaume, Islam. London: Penguin Books, 1954, pp. 21f.

[43] [18:86] When he reached the far west, he found the sun setting in a vast ocean, and found people there. We said, “O Zul-Qarnain, you can rule as you wish; either punish, or be kind to them.”

[44] [5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, “Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?” To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent

[45] [9:30] The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of GOD,” while the Christians said, “Jesus is the son of GOD!” These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.

[46] [4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

[47] [5:75] The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!

[48] Morey, p. 147.

[49] Based on ibid., p. 153.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] John T. McNeill (ed.), Ford Lewis Battles (transl.). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, Book 3, ch. 2, No. 34 -35, pp. 582-583.

[53] McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 46.

[54]This approach was suggested in Vignette 2, “The Missing Originals,” by Winfried Corduan, Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993, p.183.

[55] This solution is suggested in “Response to Vignette 2,” in ibid., pp. 203-204.

[56] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990, p. 160.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., p. 157.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., p. 144.

[62] Ibid., p. 161.

[63] These points are based on ibid., pp. 157-161, but mostly pp. 160-161.

[64] Some of these points suggested by David Watson, My God Is Real. Westchester, Illinois: Good News Publishers, 1970, p.9.

[65]D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions About the Christian Faith. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1997, p. 29.

[66] Our Daily Bread, March 11, 1987, “A Book to Be Loved.”

[67] Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. San Bernardion, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.

[68] John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.

• As you give reasons for the existence of God; as you show the Bible to be reliable and trustworthy, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY. Pray for God’s Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the spiritually blind person to whom you are witnessing.

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 July 2016.

Spencer D Gear

Part 1 of 4

This is the first part of a 4-part series.  See also:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

Why is it necessary for us in the 21^st century to have to address a topic such as this, “Can You Trust Your Bible?”  We’ve had this New Testament (NT) for close to 2,000 years and the first books of the Old Testament (OT) – Pentateuch: Gen.-Deut. & Job – for about 3,500 years.[1] [Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Malachi, 1 & 2 Chronicles, concluded the OT canon  [400-500BC].  We’ll consider some reasons in a moment.

This series will not deal with:

1. Which English translation is the best?  That would be an interesting topic.  We’ll be dealing with the trustworthiness of the OT and NT in the original manuscripts.
2. We will not be discussing, except in passing, how the books came to be selected for the OT and the NT.  That’s the canonicity of the Bible and it will not be our focus.
3. We also will be learning some general approaches to help with sharing the Gospel — including a defence of the trustworthiness of the Bible.

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

For me, these are prominent reasons, but they are not in order of priority:

1. First, when you turn on the TV or radio, or read the newspaper at Easter and Christmas times particularly (but also at other times), you will be fed loads of doubt about the Bible and its truthfulness.  In fact, much of this doubt is being driven by some from within the church who do not believe what the Bible says — liberal church men and women.  We’ll look at examples as we go along.

2 Second, this mass media message is impacting on regular people in the church and we MUST provide answers.  Shortly, I’ll give an example of a person who came to me very distraught after one of those TV programs.

We live in a mass media culture — and that includes the worldwide web.

Other worldviews can drown us and we MUST provide reasons for the Christian faith, especially for our young people.

It was about 500 years ago that the leader of the Protestant reformation, MARTIN LUTHER, said this:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every point of the Truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that point attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested.  To be steady in all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if the soldier flinches at that point.”[2]

That’s as relevant as if Luther preached it today.  I’d rather be expounding the Scriptures for the people of God, but the Bible is under attack and we must provide answers for the people of God.  It would be a disgrace if I flinched at this point.

3. There’s a third, and very important reason, why we must address a subject such as, “Can You Trust Your Bible?”  The Bible requires that we provide a defence of the faith in EVERY age of history. We desperately need it today, but we evangelicals have become lazy.  Apologetics is not a prominent theological discipline in the Bible colleges I have attended (3 of them plus 1 seminary). However, this is what the Bible states:

I Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).

That phrase in the NIV, “give an answer” is too weak.  It is better translated as in the ESV, “make a defense.”  Make an “apologia” for the Christian faith.  It’s too bad that our English word “apology,” derived from this word, gives the wrong idea for what this wonderful Greek word means for all believers.  “Give an answer”, means “give a defense” of the Christian faith — all of us need to be prepared to do that.

This is as Paul did on Mars Hill (the Areopagus), Athens, recorded in Acts 17:22ff.  It was there that he used the Greek’s “unknown god” as a starting point for defending the faith (v. 23).

According to Acts 17:17, before Paul got to the Areopagus, he “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.”

How we need Christians to be equipped for that today.

You know, “Thou shalt not think,” is NOT one of the 10 commandments.

4. There’s a fourth reason why a subject like this is needed today. I hear Christian parents saying to their teenagers about the Bible: “Accept it by faith.  God requires you to just believe it.  Faith is the answer to your doubt.  Quit asking questions about the Bible. Just accept it.”

It is my prayer that after this 4-part series, you will never say that again. Here’s why:

a. You are probably familiar with what the Bible says about its own inspiration, but let’s look at these verses again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God and [is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”.  (NASB)  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” NIV)

Psalm 119:142, 151:

Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your law is true.

But you are near, O Lord, and all your commandments are true.  (ESV)

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.

You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.  (NASB)

b. But take a look at another “scripture” from another religion.

Many of us are not familiar with these words.  They are words from the Muslim’s Koran (Quran):

Sura – 2 The Heifer ( Al-Baqarah) Order Of Revelation 87, Verses: 286[3]

[2:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[2:1] A.L.M.*

[2:2] This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;

Three Categories of People
(1) The Righteous

[2:3] who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat)*, and from our provisions **to them, they give to charity.

[2:4] And they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you*, and with regard to the Hereafter, they are absolutely certain.

[2:5] These are guided by their Lord; these are the winners.

__________________________________________________________________
*2:1 These initials remained a divinely guarded secret for 1400 years.  Now we recognize them as a major component of the Quran’s mathematical miracle (see Appendices 1, 2, 24, and 26).  The meaning of A.L.M. is pointed out in Verse 2: “This scripture is infallible.”  This is incontrovertibly proven by the fact that the frequencies of occurrence of these three initials in this sura are 4502, 3202, and 2195, respectively.  The sum of these numbers is 9899, or 19×521.  Thus, these most frequent letters of the Arabic language are mathematically placed according to a superhuman pattern.  These same initials also prefix Suras 3, 29, 30, 31, and 32, and their frequencies of occurrence add up to multiples of 19 in each one of these suras.

I put it to you, the Bible says “all Scripture is inspired by God.”

The Quran says, “This Scripture is infallible.”

Which one are you to believe? If you accept the Bible and reject the Quran, why do you do that?  Both books say that they are “inspired.”  If you accept both, you are in for massive conflict because the Quran says that:

• For the Muslim, Allah is the only true God;

• It is blasphemous to believe in the Trinity;

• Jesus Christ was a prophet for His people, in His day, but he is not the Son of God or God himself (Sura 4:171);

• The prophet Muhammed supersedes Jesus Christ;

• Jesus Christ did not atone for anyone’s sins, although Jesus was sinless;

• Jesus did not die on the cross;

• Many Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was taken bodily into heaven without having died (Sura 4:157);

• The Muslim God is unapproachable by sinful people;

• Sin and salvation in Islam are associated with works and fate (kismet);

• Some Shiite Muslims are restoring Holy War (the Jihad) as a condition of faith — it is their sacred duty to murder anyone who will not embrace the one true faith.  (Surely that is what we are seeing with the suicide bombings in the Middle East now).[4]

The Bible says that it is the infallible, God-breathed Word of God.

The Quran says that it is infallible.

How are you going to validate the Bible as a trustworthy word from the Lord Almighty; or the Quran as the infallible Word from Allah?

It will not do to say, “Accept the Bible by faith.”  We need some verification to prove that the Bible is the trustworthy word from the Lord almighty.

Take a read of one of the students on a seminary’s Bulletin Board [no longer available to the general public]:

Dear Jamie,

I agree that they were fallible humans, but can the infallible God speak to us, give us a message to give to others, and still keep that message infallible. The whole question of infallibility of scripture is one of faith.

I won’t speak for anyone but me. If the outcome of eternity is based on the relationship I have with God, requires that God give me the message in a way I can understand, and trust. If you look at other historical writings, and how the OT and NT were written over thousands of years, by so many different writers, God’s hand must have been on it. Greater minds than mine have argued this question, and I have to stand with those who hold to infallibility.

For me, when the church Canonizes the scripture, it wasn’t so we would worship, but so would have a final authority. Something that we could all agree on. As I look on every church body that has pulled away for scripture as final authority, they have fallen away from belief, to the point that some do not believe in God at all (Bishop Pike). The struggle to canonize scripture, was long and hard; yes man did it but I believe God’s hand was there helping. Now can I prove anything I just said. No! But that’s the wonderful thing about faith, I don’t have to. If you don’t hold to scripture as the final authorty, than you have to look to the mind or logic; logic will lead you to humanism or to a God who wants to speak to us. Francis A. Schaeffer’s book, He is there and He is not silent, is a very good book explaining this process.

God Bless

Larry

B. Here’s where I am going in these four messages with you.

I’m grateful for the brief time I studied under one of the world’s leading apologists, Dr John Warwick Montgomery.  I am deeply indebted to his approach to defending the faith and establishing the trustworthiness of the Bible, especially the Gospel records.  He taught me this outline (with some changes) and this is where we are going in these teaching sessions.

A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles.  The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so.

This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning.  Nothing is proved by it.  It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.

But there is no need to do this.  Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

 1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical  documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead.  This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God that He claimed to be.  If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-18; 15:1-3) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

Jesus “promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26).”  So, “we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s word.  This is not circular reasoning.  It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts.  The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.”

5. If we have time, I’ll put the Quran to the same tests that we apply to the Bible.

C. By way of explanation, I need to say that I will be using tests to establish the trustworthiness of Scripture from within the Bible and from outside the Bible.

I have known Christians to get a bit upset with me when I say that I will be using tests from outside of the Bible to prove the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible.  It’s necessary to do it this way.

Those who study the original languages of the Bible (Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) have to do this all the time.  Nowhere in the Bible do you find the rules of grammar for understanding Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  I had to learn my Greek grammar to interpret the Bible, from outside of the Bible.

For example, we know that the Bible says, “God so loved the world” and NOT “the world so loved God” because of Greek grammar that dictates the translation into English.  The Bible in the original language has to be interpreted by learning Greek grammar and syntax from OUTSIDE the Bible.

We have to do the same kind of thing when we set out to prove the trustworthiness of a historical document.

D. Let’s look at some books from history

• Here’s a biography of John Macarthur (John Macarthur, M. H. Ellis[6]), not the American preacher, but a famous Australian (1767-1834).  MacArthur was the “squire” responsible for bringing “to Australia the first authenticated pure merinos [sheep] and persuaded the British Privy Council that wool would be the basis of future greatness of the colony of New South Wales.”[7]

The author of the biography says, “though the author has worked as far as possible from original documents, he has applied his reference notes wherever it has been feasible to a source more accessible to the ordinary student.”[8] How do I know these original documents by John MacArthur are reliable and trustworthy?

• Here’s the book, The Five Gospels (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar[9]) and read p. 5: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you….  Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.” How do we decide if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 82% wrong with the words of Jesus OR the 4 Gospels provide an accurate picture of the life and death of Jesus Christ?

• Here we have The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus[10] He was a wealthy Jew who wrote this history in which he “tried to justify Judaism to the cultured Romans by his writings.”[11] He also mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. . .”[12] Is Josephus writing reliable history? If so, how do we know?

• Then I pick up my Bible and read, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).  Also, “All Scripture is God-breathed.. .” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Is God’s Word truth and reliable OR are we dealing with myth-making where 82% of what Jesus said is WRONG? How can be test these documents to see if they are trustworthy? Most of you will never read these books, but the content of them is driving what you are hearing on the mass media today about Jesus.

If I say that I believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God, and without error in all that it affirms, no news reporter will show up to interview me.

But the response is totally different if a group of high profile theologians rolls the coloured beads to decide which of the words of Jesus are true.  They come up with only 18% of his words in the Gospels are what he said and the rest are inventions by the early church —  the mass media will be along in droves.  And that’s exactly what is happening.  You watch what happens around Easter and Christmas!

We must have answers.  Our young people must not be allowed to drown in this sea of attack on the word of God at school and university.  We have good answers and we must provide them.

E. Let’s Vote on Jesus

Starting in 1985, a group of Bible scholars got together to decided if the words of Jesus in the Gospels were authentic.  “At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar [that’s what they were called, male & female] voted, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus’ words.  Dropping colored beads into a box became the trademark of the [Jesus] Seminar . . .”[13]

This is what they found:

Pink bead: Sure sounds like Jesus.

Grey bead: Well, maybe.

Black bead: There’s been some mistake.

[Robert W. Funk,  Roy W. Hoover & The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993, p. 37)]

•  A red slip meant that  “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something like it.”  In brief: “That’s Jesus.”
• A pink slip indicated that “Jesus probably said something like this.”  In brief: “Sure sounds like Jesus.”
• Grey: “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.”  In brief: “Well, maybe.”
• A black slip meant “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.”  In brief: “There’s been some mistake.”[14]

After tabulating the results of their voting, the Jesus Seminar asserts, “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.”[15]

If we are to be Christians of substance, I am convinced that we need to accept the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God.  How can we do that?  Listen to some thinking from those associated with the church.

F. What Some Theologians Are Saying

Some theologians are leading the push to make Jesus fit into the trendy modern mold of what our modern secular culture wants.

1. Former Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop John Spong (USA)

In his book, Born of a Woman [please note, the book is not titled, Born of a Virgin, and that is deliberate.  Spong makes the outlandish suggestion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus illegitimately.  The early church as a cover-up invented the virgin birth.

In talking about the birth story of Jesus in Luke 2, Spong asks: “Is it true? . .  The answer is, of course, no! . .  There was no biologically literal virgin birth. . .  In all probability Jesus was born in Nazareth in a very normal way either as the child of Mary and Joseph, or else he was an illegitimate child that Joseph validated by acknowledging him as Joseph’s son.  All that can be stated definitely is that the echoes of the status of illegitimacy appear to be far stronger in the text then the suggestion that Jesus was Mary’s child by Joseph.”[16]

2. Barbara Thiering (Australia)

In her book, Jesus: The Man, she claims that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.  He was poisoned and then revived.  He married and raised three children.

3. Roman Catholic biblical scholar, John Dominic Crossan (USA)

In his book, The Historical Jesus (1991), he states that Jesus did not rise from the dead.  Jesus was buried in a shallow grave; the body was dug up and eaten by dogs.[17]

Please understand that when these liberal theologians like Crossan speak of “the historical Jesus,” they are:

• NOT speaking about Jesus as he lived in history;
• They are using a technical term, a reconstruction of Jesus;
• The “historical Jesus” is the one who can be explained in scientific, historical, purely human categories;
• Anything miraculous is myth because supernatural events defy history and cannot be called history.  They are mythological.
• So, in reality, their so-called historical Jesus is the unhistorical invention of these critics.  They are creating Jesus in their own image and calling him “the historical Jesus.”18]

I am convinced that Charles Colson is correct when he states that:

“Taken together, books like these can create a widespread climate of opinion that the Bible is simply a collection of myths and errors.  Even evangelical Christians may gradually accept the same principle and begin to separate faith from facts.  The Bible is true in its spiritual message, they say, but full of errors in its history.”[19]

There was an SBS television series here in Australia in 1999.  It was called, “From Jesus to Christ,” and presented the views of people like those from the Jesus Seminar.  After watching one episode of that program, a Christian came to me,  utterly devastated.  She said something like:

• “Have I been deceived?
• Have I believed a lie all this time?
• The biblical scholars on that program said that the words of Jesus couldn’t be trusted as accurate or truthful.
• In fact, they are saying that about 80% of the words that the NT puts in Jesus’ mouth DID NOT come from him at all.  The early church inserted them in the Bible because the church wanted us to believe that.
• I need some answers.  Is this true that the early church put words in Jesus’ mouth?  These scholars say it is.”

In the Bible, faith can never be separated from historical facts.  To talk about the “Jesus of faith” vs. “the Jesus of history” is nonsensical.  Remember what Paul said in I Corinthians 15?  “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so it your faith . . .  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (vv. 14, 17).  If Jesus was not raised from the dead–historical fact–your faith is worthless.

Besides, if we accept the premise that the Bible is wrong, we become butchers.  We start the chopping job.  How are we going to decide what is believable and what is to be chucked out?  If we start tampering with the Bible, we will be trying to make Jesus to fit what we want.  Our prejudices will make Jesus into the image we want him to be.[20]

I’d like to introduce you to a rather different approach to judo.

G. The Judo Technique

I learned this when I was studying Jim Kennedy’s gospel presentation in Evangelism Explosion.[21]

Often as you begin presenting the gospel, the person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible.  You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures.”  Many people are devastated by this objection.  What happens to them?  Their attempt to share Christ fizzles.

This need not be the case.  I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the gospel itself.  The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.

He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true.  When we witness, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel, not defence of the Bible.  BUT when people object to the Bible, we DO NEED good answers to respond.  And there ARE EXCELLENT answers.

The judo technique works like this.  The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with.  Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches.  Instead use the technique of the judo expert .  The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.

Here’s how it works in presenting the gospel.  The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, or biblical criticism or something like that.

There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.”  It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel.  I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.

“You don’t believe the Bible, John?  That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part.  However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.

“But I would like to ask you a question.  The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life.  So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”

He may say that he does not believe in eternal life.  To this you might say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand.  It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message, would it not?  What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life?  What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on this subject?”

My experience is that over 90% will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that.

You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John.  You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message, for your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches.  Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”

Now the tables have been completely turned.  Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message.  Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.

This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be.  So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel.  It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from the deadness because of sin.

If he persists that he will not discuss anything further with you until you deal with his objection I suggest the following pre-evangelism approach (apologetics):

H. You need to begin with the existence of God

Hebrews 11:6 (NIV) states. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

Will you please think through how you could present a case for the existence of the Almighty God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ – to somebody who doesn’t know the Lord?

What would be your starting point?

Notes:

[21]Australian Edition published by Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong 2500, 1983, pp. 84-85.

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 July 2016.

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

(Part 2 of 4 parts)

This is a 4-part series.  Also see:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

See “Can you Trust the Bible?  Part 1.”

B. Where are we going in this 4-part series?

See “Can you Trust the Bible?  Part 1.”

C. You need to begin with the existence of God

Hebrews 11:6 (NIV): And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

D. I asked you to think on evidence for the existence of God.

I suggested taking a look at two passages of Scripture that give us some pointers for the existence of God:

1. Psalm 19 (read vv. 1-3)
2. Romans 1 (read vv. 18-20)

One of the finest defenders of the existence of God is leading apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig.  I recommend you read his articles on the existence of God.

Now, back to our topic.  What tests do historians apply to any piece of literature of history to determine if it is accurate or reliable?

Military historian, C. Sanders says there are 3 basic principles of checking the authenticity of historical writings (historiography). I’ll use the acronym, T.I.E.S., to help us remember them:

• the Transmission test (sometimes called, the bibliographical test) — NOT biographical, but biblio = books; graphical = writing. The Transmission test. That’s the “T”.
• the Internal evidence test — that’s the ‘I”, and
• the External evidence test — that’s the “E”.[1]
• we’ll get to the “S” later, but I want you to think about what it might be to make it T.I.E.S. What ties this all together?

Let’s subject the N.T. to the

1. TRANSMISSION TEST

The transmission test is an examination of how the documents reached us from when they were written. Since we don’t have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in:

• number of manuscripts (MSS)?
• time interval between the original and the earliest copy?

a. NEW TESTAMENT

Transmission Test for Historical Documents (incl. New Testament)

Author/Book	Date Written	Earliest Copies	Time Gap (years)	Number of Copies	Percentage Accuracy
Hindu Mahabharata	13th century BC				90
Plato	c. 400 BC	A.D. c. 900	1300	7	7
Homer, Iliad	900 BC (900-700 BC)	400 BC ?	500	643	95
Demosthenes	300 BC	c. AD 1100	1,400	200	?
Caesar, Gallic Wars	100-144 BC	AD 900	1,000	10	?
Tacitus, Annals	AD 100	AD 1100	1,000	20	?
Pliny Secundus, Natural History	AD 61-112	c. AD 850	750	7	?
New Testament	AD 50-100	c. 114 (fragment) c. 200 (books) c. 250 (most of NT) c. 325 (whole NT)	c. +/- 50 c. 100 c. 150 c. 225	5,366 (Greek) 24,000+ (with other translations)	99*

Comparison of Ancient Manuscript totals (Josh McDowell, Christianity: Hoax or History? Tyndale House Publishers, 1989, pp. 50-51; Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986, p. 408)

My assessment:

I am in total agreement with the late Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, formerly director and principal librarian of the British Museum, who wrote just before his death:

“The interval then 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 Scriptures have 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.”[2]

Please understand:

• These people who were used by the Lord to write the NT, were living in a hostile culture. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies. They would dare not manipulate the facts because they would be pounced on at once by those who would be glad to discredit them.

• Also remember that a witness must testify of his/her own knowledge. When we apply this to the NT, we see clearly that we have primary evidence from eyewitnesses. I John 1:1, ” That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched–this we proclaim concerning the Word of life (NIV).”[3]

In determining if the NT is a trustworthy and accurate document, historians use 3 tests. I am suggesting these 3, PLUS one more that is summarised by the acronym: T.I.E.S.

We’ve looked at the “T,” the transmission of the text, now to the “I”.

2. INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

So far, we’ve determined, beyond reasonable doubt, that the text we have is what was originally recorded. BUT WE STILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE CREDIBLE, AND TO WHAT EXTENT. This is the second test of historicity given by Sanders. Historical and literary scholarship follows Aristotle’s dictum, “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.”

In the words of leading lawyer, apologist and theologian, John Warwick Montgomery, “This means that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”[4]

The historian must examine the ability of the writer or witness to tell the truth. This ABILITY TO TELL THE TRUTH is closely related to HOW CLOSE THE WITNESS WAS TO THE EVENT GEOGRAPHICALLY AND HOW CLOSE IN TIME TO THE EVENTS RECORDED.

The N.T. accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by people who had been either eyewitnesses or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses.

Let’s look at the evidence:

1. Biblical Evidence

Luke 1:1-3 (NIV): Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.

Luke 3:1: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar–when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene–

John 19:35: The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

1 John 1:3: We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:16: We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

The internal evidence test reveals we are dealing with eyewitnesses, those who saw and heard. More than that:

Acts 2:22: demonstrated how they appealed to the people who heard their message. “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Note the emphasis:

a. “God did among you through him.” In other words, you were there; you were eyewitnesses of these things;

b. Also, “as you yourselves know.” You know what we are saying is true.

They could not depart from the truth. There were hostile witnesses there to refute them.[5]

Acts 26:24-26: At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defence. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.”

They not only said, “Look, we saw this . . . We heard that.” But the tables were turned in the full view of hostile witnesses, adverse critics. “You also know about these things, you saw them, they weren’t done in a secret corner.”[6]

2. Fulfilled Prophecy[7]

For some key OT prophecies concerning Christ and their NT fulfillment, see “Can you trust the Bible? Part 3.”

3. Literal Interpretation

“Those who accept the Bible as the Word of God are often accused of taking the Bible literally. The question ‘Do you believe the Bible literally?’ is like the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Either a Yes or a No convicts the one who responds. Whenever the question is asked, the term ‘literally‘ must be carefully defined. Taking a literal view of the Bible does not mean that we can’t recognize that figures of speech are used in the Scripture. When Isaiah spoke of “trees clapping their hands” (Isaiah 55:12) and the psalmist of “mountains skipping like rams” (Psalms 114:4, 6), it is not to be thought that one takes the Bible literally views such statements as literal. No, there is poetry as well as prose and other literary forms in the Bible. We believe that the Bible is to be interpreted in the sense in which the authors intended it to be received by readers. This is the same principle one employs when reading the newspaper, [Shakespeare or poet, William Wordsworth]. And it is remarkably easy to distinguish between figures of speech and those statements a writer intends his readers to take literally.”[8]

If you are checking out the reliability of any written manuscript from history, you

need to apply these three tests:

T: Transmission Test

I: Internal Evidence Test

E: External Evidence Test

(continued in Part 3)

Notes

[1] C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[2] Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology. New York: Harper and Row, 1940, pp. 288f, in Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Revised and Expanded). Chicago: Moody Press, 1968, 1986, p. 405; also in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter. Eastbourne, Sussex, England: Kingsway Publications, 1977, p. 48.

[3] Suggested by John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1975, p. 88.

[4] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1965, p. 29.

[5] Suggested by F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960, p. 46.

[6] Concerning the primary-source value of the N.T. records, the late F.F. Bruce, former Professor [Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis] in the University of Manchester, says:

“The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of the first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. . .

“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 of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at 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 facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1960, pp. 45-46).

[7] From D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion, third edition, 1983, pp. 86-88 (from Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong, 2500).

[8] Paul Little, Know Why You Believe (rev. ed.). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1967, 1980, 1987, pp. 54-55, emphasis added.

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 July 2016.

(courtesy Clipart Library)

By Spencer D Gear

This is a 4-part series. See also:

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

Introduction

Hebrews 4:12 (ESV) says: “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.”

I was reminded of the truth of this text when I read of

“a short-term missionary [who] gave a report on her experience overseas. She and several others were entering a communist country. At the border the guards asked them, ‘Do you have any guns, drugs, or Bibles?’

“What an interesting combination! Guns are weapons of destruction that kill the body. Drugs can alter and distort the mind. The Bible can expose and destroy all that is false. But it is much more than a threat to atheism. It can enrich life, instill hope, and free the human spirit even when a person is confined [in a prison camp for spreading the Gospel]. No wonder an atheistic government would fear its power and put it in a class with guns and drugs.”[1]

I read the story of “a young boy who was in the habit of going to church. [But he] was unable to attend one Sunday because he was ill. So he went upstairs to his bedroom and read his Bible. He was unusually quiet, and his mother began wondering if he was up to some mischief.

“Finally she called out, ‘What are you doing, Andy?’He replied, ‘I’m watching Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead!”

What a beautiful answer! He was reading John 11, and his childlike faith made the scene come alive.[2]

Someone has said that there are three stages of Bible study:

First, the “cod-liver oil” stage, where you take it like medicine because it’s good for you.

The second is the “shredded-wheat biscuit” stage — dry but nourishing;

And third, is the “mango and ice-cream” stage — really enjoyable.

Which stage have you reached?[3]

In spite of the fact that it is a VERY OLD book, the Bible is still “the most popular and widely read book in the world with more than one hundred million new copies, in whole or in part, produced every year.”[4]

But at what a price?

On October 6, 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake because he dared to translate the Bible into English so that the common person could read it. In Foxe’s Book of Martyrs it records this:

At last after much reasoning, when no reason would serve, although he deserved no death, he was condemned by virtue of the emperor’s decree, made in the Assembly at Augsburg. Brought forth to the place of execution, he was tied to the stake, strangled by the hangman, and afterwards consumed with fire, at the town of Filford, A.D. 1536; crying at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice, “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.”[5]

Why would people like Tyndale and others risk their very lives to translate the Scriptures into the native language of people? We have the Bible in English today, thanks to the work of Christian martyr, William Tyndale, and earlier by John Wycliffe who made his “first version of the New Testament in Middle English” in 1380, “and a second edition appeared in 1388 after his death. . . The first edition was a word-for-word translation of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate, in places following the Latin so closely that the meaning was obscure.”[6] Wycliffe lived from about 1329-1384.[7]

“There are several major differences between Wycliffe’s translation and Tyndale’s:

“1. Wycliffe’s Bible was a translation of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate [Jerome lived ca. 340-420], but Tyndale’s went back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

“2.Wycliffe’s Bible was a hand-copied manuscript, whereas Tyndale’s Bible was printed.

“3.Wycliffe translated into Middle English, but Tyndale’s version belongs to the Modern English period.”[8]

“Why would generations of Hebrew scribes meticulously copy the Old Testament Scriptures, repeatedly checking their work letter by letter, even counting the letters to ensure their accuracy?

“The answer lies in the belief that the Bible is the very Word of God, thus necessitating its accurate transmission and its availability to people of any language.”[9]

Why is the Bible considered to be the Word of God and how can we know its accuracy and trustworthiness? We’re travelling on a journey of attempting to validate the Bible. Can you trust your Bible? Today this is such a critical issue because of the anti-God, anti-Bible culture here in Australia and around the world.

It is especially important because Islam is on the march. The Quran, Sura 2:2, says: “This scripture [the Quran] is infallible; a beacon for the righteous.”

Second Tim.3:16 (ESV)”All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Jesus said according to John 17:17 (ESV)”Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

Which ones are you to believe? I am not making a blasphemous statement. We must provide answers for this generation:

The Quran says it is the infallible Scripture;

The NT says that all of the Bile is “breathed out by God” (inspired by God). Jesus said, “Your word is truth?”

How do we validate one over the other?

So far, I have suggested two historical tests that historians use for ANY historical document, including the Quran and the Bible, Captain Cook’s writings, the works of Shakespeare or my local newspaper from the 1960s.

If we want to test the trustworthiness of any historical document, historians put it through 3 tests (PLUS something that TIES them together) suggested by the acronym: T.I.E.S.

• First: T: The Transmission Test,

a. The number of MSS; (5,366 Gk MSS; 24,000+ with other languages). Only one that comes close is Homer’s Iliad, 643 MSS (earliest copy, 500 years after the original writing);

b. Time interval between the writing of MSS and the earliest copy.

c. ca. 114 (fragment), John 18:31-33, 37-38 (written on both sides) — in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England;

d. ca. 200 (books)

e. ca. 250 (most of NT)

f. ca. 325 (whole NT)

g. These NT books were written between 50-100 A.D.

• Second: “I” = the Internal evidence test,

A. Listen to the claims made in the document. Do NOT assume error;

B. Those who wrote the N.T. were eyewitnesses who saw and heard OR they got their information from eyewitnesses;

C. There were hostile people around at the time who would refute the information if it were false.

Let’s take a look at test for historical authenticity, No. 3. This is the ‘E’ of TIES.

C. THIRD, THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST

In the External Evidence Test, we look for evidence outside of the Bible that confirms people, places and events in the Bible.

1.  Secular Evidence for Jesus

a. Jewish Historian, Josephus, (A.D. 37-100)

Eminent NT scholar, the late F.F. Bruce says:

“Here in the pages of Josephus, we meet many figures who are well-known to us from the New Testament: the colourful family of the Herods; the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and the procurators of Judea; the high priestly families–Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and the rest; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and so on”[10]

Josephus wrote of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James . . .”[11]

There is also a disputed passage (that I do NOT recommend that you use) in Antiquities of the Jews that reads like this:

“Now there was about this time [he means Pilate’s time, AD 26-36] Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men who receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men against us, had condemned him to the cross,[12] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,[13] as the divine prophets had foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”[14]

Michael Green says “no attempts to impugn its authenticity can be said to have succeeded. It has as good attestation as anything in Josephus, it is included in all the manuscripts.We know that the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius had this quote in his copy of Jospehus. He quoted it twice”[15]

• There’s sarcasm here by Josephus when he writes: “if it be lawful to call him a man.”This might be a back-handed hint at Jesus’ claims to be God;

• It may have been a Christian insertion by a copyist when he wrote, ” He was [the] Christ,” but it could just as easily refer to the sign that was on the cross when Jesus died, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” or “the King of the Jews” (Mt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38 NIV).

• Even if the statement about Christ’s resurrection reflects a Christian insertion (and there is no evidence that it has been fiddled with, based on manuscript evidence), here we have a passage in a leading Jewish historian at the time of Christ who gives “powerful, independent testimony to the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.”[16]

• It does seem too extensive and specific to have come from a Jew who was not a follower of Christ, but the manuscript evidence does not support such a claim.[17]

What can we conclude from Josephus?

• The stories about Jesus were no myth.

• There was so much circumstantial evidence that they even found their way into the apologetic work of the Jewish historian Josephus.

• If there was anybody who should have kept his lips shut and his ink pen dry about the person of Jesus, it would have had to be Josephus. But that was not the case.

b. Roman Historian, Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55?–after 117)

A contemporary of Pliny (whom we will meet soon), he is considered the greatest historian of Imperial Rome.

Michael Green explains:

“He tells us how the Christians, hated by the populace for their `crimes’ (alluding no doubt to the Christian emphasis on `love’ which was given a sinister twist by the pagans and construed as incest) were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of AD 64 by the Emperor Nero.`The name Christian,’ he writes, `comes to them from Christ, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; and the pernicious cult, suppressed for a while, broke out afresh and spread not only through Judea, the source of the disease, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.'”[18]

He wrote of Nero’s attempt to relieve himself of the guilt of burning Rome:

“Hence to suppress the rumor [i.e. that Nero had set fire to the city of Rome], he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.”[19]

c. Greek satirist, Lucian (second century)

He alludes to Christ as:

a man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. . . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.[20]

d. Roman historian, Suetonius (about AD 120)

He was a court official under Emperor Hadrian. He made two specific references to Jesus in writing: “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chestus [another spelling of Christus or Christ], he expelled them from Rome”[21].

In the Lives of the Caesars,[22] Suetonius wrote: “Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.”[23]

e. Pliny the Younger (about AD 112)

He was governor of the province of Bithynia (now in northern Turkey) and was writing to the emperor, Trajan, about his achievements. He gave information on how he had killed multitudes of Christians–men, women and children. He said that he had attempted to “make them curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do. “In the same letter[24] he wrote of Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, and never to deny a truth when they should be called upon to deliver it up.[25]

f. Samaritan-born historian, Thallus (about AD 52)

His work is lost, but a fragment of it is preserved in the second-century writer, Julius Africanus (ca. A.D. 221), who tells us:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun–unreasonably, as it seems to me.[26]

It is “unreasonable” because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time as the full moon.It was the time of the Passover (paschal) full moon when Christ died.

g. Mara Bar-Serapion (after AD 73)

In a Syriac manuscript in the British Museum, there is a remarkable letter which this man wrote to his son in prison (although some say it was Mara who was in prison). He compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Jesus:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and the plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. . . But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”[27]

h.The Jewish Talmud (completed by AD 500)

The Talmud consists of “two books known as the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. . . They contain the oral teaching of earlier rabbis (Mishnah), which was an explanation of the law of Moses together with discussions of this teaching (Gemara). Christian scholars find these helpful for knowledge of Jewish interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.”[28]

The Babylonian Talmud[29]contains this explicit reference to Jesus:

“On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.”[30]

In another Talmud section, it was written concerning Jesus: “I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress.”[31] Jewish belief was that Jesus was an illegitimate son and demon-possessed, similar to accusations against him in the N.T.[32]

If we combine this secular testimony to Christ, what picture do we get?

(1)”Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover time.

• He was believed by his disciples to have risen from the dead three days later.

• Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery and believed he was born of adultery.

• The Judean sect of Christianity could not be contained but spread even to Rome.

• Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians.

• These early Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ’s teachings, and worshipped Christ.This picture is perfectly congruent with that of the New Testament.”[33]

2. Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament

While there has been confirmation of the general outline of New Testament history, I will focus on Luke’s writings. There are hundreds of archaeological finds that support specific persons, events and facts presented in Luke-Acts, including some that were once thought to be incorrect.

a. Official titles

We need to especially note Luke’s correct usage of official titles.He calls the rulers of Thessalonica “politarchs” in Acts 17:6, 8.[34] In the NIV it is translated as “city officials.” It means “magistrates” and

was once dismissed as a mistake of the writer of Acts. . . because the term did not appear in any other context. Seventeen examples from [inscriptions] now are listed. . .[35] The examples cover a century and a half from the beginning of the first century to the middle of the second. One is housed in the British Museum and came from an archway in Salonika. The same inscription, curiously enough, contains names that occur among those listed as members of the Thessalonian church. It is obviously a Macedonian term, and its use conforms to Luke’s consistent practice of employing the correct official terminology commonly accepted. In similar fashion he called the petty officials of the Roman colony of Philippi ‘praetors.’[36]

Gallio was the “Proconsul of Achaia.”[37]

The grammateus[38] was in Ephesus (Acts 19:35). He was the “city clerk” (NIV) or “recorder.”[39]

The governor of Cyprus was a “proconsul.”

The leading person in Malta was called “the chief official of the island”[40] or “leading man of the island”[41] (a title confirmed in Greek and Latin inscriptions).

In Philippi (Acts 16:30), the “magistrates” (NIV) were known as strategoi (in the Greek.). “All of these have been confirmed by inscriptions [outside of the Bible]. The scenes [Luke] paints of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus and the journey to Rome ring absolutely true in the ears of those best able to judge.”[42]

These descriptions were once thought to be part of the fertile imagination of Luke the fantasiser. Now, they have solid historical backing, thanks to the meticulous work of archaeologists.

b. Chronological references

Luke is known to be correct in these references. He refers to “Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene” at the time John the Baptist began his ministry (AD 27), once thought to be incorrect, but now confirmed to be correct by Greek inscriptions. Lysanias was tetrarch between AD 14 and 29. Other chronological references are known to be correct, including those referring to Caesar, Herod, and even Gallio (Acts 18:12-17).

Numerous places in the Gospels, including the Pool of Siloam (John 9:7-11) and the “judgment seat” near Corinth (2 Cor. 5:10) have been verified by archaeology.

Other names of persons mentioned in the N.T. that were thought to be false, have been confirmed through archaeology. Another example is:

A first-century marble slab was found at Corinth in 1929 with this inscription, “Erastus, in consideration of his appointment as curator of buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.” [43] It is possible that this person is Erastus, one of Paul’s co-workers from whom Paul sent greetings according to Rom. 16:23. He was the city treasurer in Corinth.[44]

[For other examples, see Michael Green, World on the Run, pp. 40-42]

c. Conclusions

These kinds of archaeological finds cause eminent people to reach some startling conclusions.

A.N. Sherwin-White, distinguished Roman historian, says this about Luke’s writings: “For [the Book of] Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[45]

Luke is commended by classical historian, G.A. Williamson, for demonstrating “complete familiarity with the thought, expression, and habitual terminology of the speakers, and . . what memories the people of that time possessed!–if not on written notes, which we have reason to believe were commonly made.”[46]

Thanks to the archaeological efforts of the late Sir William Ramsay, many of the critical views of the N.T. have been overthrown. Ramsay himself was converted from the critical view of liberal theology. He wrote:

             I began with a mind unfavorable to it [Book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.[47]

Renowned archaeologist and paleographer[48], William F. Albright, notes: “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are, therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today.”[49]

Let’s recap. If we want to test the trustworthiness of any historical document, historians put it through 3 tests:

• First: T: The Transmission Test,

a. The number of MSS;

b. Time interval between the writing of MSS and the earliest copy.

• Second: I: the Internal evidence test,

a. Listen to the claims made in the document. Do NOT assume error;

b. Those who wrote the N.T. were eyewitnesses who saw and heard OR they got their information from eyewitnesses;

c. There were hostile people around at the time who would refute the information if it were false.

• Third, E: the External evidence test.[50]

We heard from historians of the NT period and after the NT times:

• Josephus;
• Tacitus;
• Lucian;
• Suetonius;
• Pliny the Younger;
• Thallus;
• Mara Bar-Serapion;
• Jewish Talmud.

The N.T. documents can be relied upon to give an accurate picture of Jesus Christ. Let’s go to those documents and investigate who Jesus Christ is and why He died on the cross.

Conclusion:

The Psalmist loved the Word of God. Listen to some of his words about the Word in Psalm 119:

Psalm 119:11 (ESV I have stored up [OR, hid] your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.

Psalm 119:16 (ESV) I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.

Psalm 119:97 (ESV) Oh how I love your law!It is my meditation all the day.

Psalm 119:103 (ESV) How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

Psalm 119:105 (ESV) Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

“One measure of your love for God is your love for God’s Word”[51]

---

Spencer D Gear

“How can you possibly believe in the goodness of God when you consider that he allowed the slaughter of seven innocent people at Strathfield (Sydney, NSW)?” a concerned individual asked me shortly after that tragic event. I responded: There’s more than Strathfield.

What about the Sudanese refugees inEthiopia, who are moving back to theSudan, but have been bombed by aircraft? We also can’t forget about the hundreds of thousands who died in theBangladeshcyclone.” As it was put to me once, “I used to believe in God until my child was killed in an accident.”

If God did not claim to be good, the problem would be simple. But, Psalm 106:1 says, “Give thanks to the Lord for he is good; his love endures forever.” If he were not all-powerful, there would be no problem. If evil and suffering were an illusion, the dilemma could be escaped. But the problem is very real, especially for those in pain.

Isn’t this an irreconcilable paradox: a good, all-powerful God who permits all this suffering? The question of suffering boils down to this: How can a God of love allow so much suffering in the world? Either he doesn’t exist or he’s a vicious tyrant who enjoys seeing people in pain. This sounds like a pretty strong case against the existence of a loving God.

But is it? I do not propose any slick, easy answers to the real problem of suffering. Mine is not the last word on the subject, but I am convinced the biblical solution conforms with reality. I reject, for good reasons, atheistic philosopher,
Bertrand Russell’s conclusion that no one could sit beside a dying child and still believe in the existence of God.

The problem of evil is one of the greatest obstacles to belief in God for some people. The classic form of the argument has been vigorously debated on university campuses for hundreds of years: If God is all-good, He would destroy evil. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. So, there is no such God.

I reject such a conclusion because it ignores some important facts. Granted, my response is based on acceptance of God’s revelation in the Bible. I make no apologies for endorsing the Bible. Its trustworthiness is more substantial than any other writing from antiquity.

One of the things that makes human beings unique is that we have real choice about what we do. God made us that way so that we could be like him and love freely (to be forced to love is not love at all).

But in making us this way, God also allowed for the possibility of evil. He gave us the ability to choose good, but that option also came with the possibility to choose evil. That was the risk God knowingly took when he made our first parents, Adam and Eve. They disobeyed and evil entered the human race.

That doesn’t make God responsible for evil. He created the fact of freedom. He made evil possible; people made evil actual. Evil came through the abuse of our freedom as human beings.

However, babies are born blind and many are maimed for life through war. Earthquakes cause unprecedented destruction. Domestic violence, it seems, is responsible for incredible suffering in our city. Why doesn’t God stop all this?

There are at least three reasons. First, evil cannot be destroyed without destroying freedom. As already stated, free human beings are the cause of evil, and freedom was given so that we could love. Love is the greatest good for all people (Matthew 22:36-37), but love is impossible without freedom.

Second, to deny the existence of God, because of evil in the world, is to make some arrogant assumptions. Just because evil is not destroyed now, doesn’t mean it never will be. This view implies that if God hasn’t done what we want as of today, then it won’t ever happen. That presumes that the person making the argument has some inside information about the future.

The third reason is based on the nature of God. If I as a parent decide to discipline my son, I can change my mind and let him off. Not so with God. His nature is unchanging. When he said the results of rejecting him were suffering and death in all creation (Genesis 3), he could not change the consequences of sin because of his own attributes.

Therefore, if we take this into consideration, we can restate the argument about evil so that it turns out to support the existence of God.

We could put it this way: If God is all-good, He will defeat evil. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil. Evil is not yet defeated. Therefore, God can and will one day defeat evil. If God were to eliminate all evil today, which one of us would survive past midnight?

What is the most profound answer to the problem of suffering? The cross of Jesus Christ! We cannot accuse God of being an innocent by-stander. He took his own medicine. At the heart of the dilemma of human suffering is the cross of Christ, where evil did its worst and met its match. God himself (in Christ) went through pain, suffering and death to save humanity from eternal suffering.

The presence of evil even has some good purposes, as C.S. Lewis points out, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” [2] I have been there personally, through open-heart surgery three times (mitral valve replacement). Honestly, I can say personally, “I bless you pain for being in my life.”

I have only set the window of answers slightly ajar in providing an answer for the problem of pain and suffering. In God’s gift of human freedom I can see a light in the darkness of human misery.

God created the fact of freedom,

We perform the acts of freedom.

God made evil possible.

Human beings made evil actual.

Evil and suffering came through the abuse of our moral perfection as free human beings.

 

References

2.C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962, p. 93, in Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask.Wheaton,Illinois: Victor Books, 1990, p. 68.

3.Based on Geisler & Brooks, p. 63.

Give thanks to the Lord for he is good.

 

Copyright (c) 2013 Spencer D. Gear.  This document is free content.  You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version.  This document last updated at Date: 5 September 2013.

Whytehouse designs