QUEST: Why the Bible?

Pretty much any philosophical conversation we could ever have will come down to worldview. Where do we get our worldview? For Christians, it is always derived from the Bible.


But how do we know that we can trust the Bible as an accurate source? In the words of Voddie Baucham, “I choose to believe the Bible because it’s a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.”


Let’s break down the reasons why we should trust the Bible:


1. It’s a reliable collection of historical documents.


There are various ways that “historical documents” are proven to be reliable, with both internal and external proofs. Below, read the criteria and how the Bible is proven authentic.


For example, there are INTERNAL CRITERIA:


-Was it written by or based on an eyewitness account? (or based on “hearsay”)

Yes, it was written by eyewitnesses or interviewers of eyewitnesses during a time where other eyewitnesses could hold the document accountable to the truth.


-Does it contain excess detail and irrelevant material?

Yes, the gospels in particular contain names of places, where people are from, people’s feelings, random actions, etc. that do not pertain to the “main idea.” The letters also include details that are important for whom the letter is directed.


-Does it include self-damaging material? (casting negativity on “heroes”)

The “characters” of the Bible are very flawed. Jesus says things that may be used against his claim to be God when he says at the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Women find the empty tomb, and their witness meant nothing in that time period.


-Is the document reasonably self-consistent? (although multiple perspectives should include minor discrepancies if they are varying eye-witness accounts)

Who Jesus was, what he did, and events around his life are consistent although minor details are different. This means that there was no collusion or planning out their story, like there would be if it was all fabricated. Instead, there is a reasonable amount of discrepancy to prove its validity.


-Is there evidence of legendary accretion? (“Larger than life” features diminish trustworthiness)

Although there is, in fact, a lot of supernatural events documented in the gospels, they are not the “legend” kind of material. They are simply acts of miracles on an individual level.


Also, there’s EXTERNAL CRITERIA:

-Would the authors have motive for fabricating what they wrote?

In this case, the authors had absolutely no motive to fabricate what they wrote. In fact, many of the authors and teachers of this belief suffered and died as martyrs. Many in the past have died for what they believed was true. How many people have died for a lie that they fabricated to no end?


-Are there other sources to confirm truth?

Concerning Jesus as a historical figure alone, many extra-biblical authors made reference to the existence of Jesus within the first two centuries AD. For example, Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian and author of Antiquities as well as Tacitus, Roman historian in the Annals, made reference to the man “Christus” Jesus, “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works.” Thallus in AD 52 wrote of the eclipse of the sun and earthquake (which took place in Jesus’ death), and Pliny the Younger in AD 112 referred to Christians who “praise Christ.” In the Talmud, it explains that “Yeshu was hanged” for sorcery and apostasy. Finally Lucian, a Roman rhetorician, referenced Jesus, as a worshiped, “crucified sage.” Historically, there is little to no doubt that Jesus existed as a person and died through crucifixion.


-Does archeology support material?

As a whole, the Bible’s archeology agrees with what has been uncovered. Cities, land, kings, etc. all agree with what we know historically. Nothing archeologically that has been discovered has been in contrast to what the Bible has recorded. There is some question as to lack of material. For example, where is the proof of the biblical exodus? This is a good question, but it does not disprove its occurrence. Also, why was Herod’s murder of the babies not recorded? Interestingly, the town of Bethlehem was so small and insignificant that there were probably only about 600 people in the whole town. Due to Herod’s many heinous activities, this death of a few dozen children was probably not pertinent enough to document. Again, lack of data does not prove it did not occur. As a whole, the positive archeological evidence that we do actually have all points to the authenticity of scripture.


-Could contemporaries of the document falsify the account, and would they have motive?

Eyewitnesses and interviewers of eyewitnesses wrote the New Testament in community with other eyewitnesses that could have rejected the writings as lies. In fact, so many groups like the Pharisees and Gnostics did not want to see the Christian movement spread. If they could have falsified the account, they would have. Instead of denying the facts as they were, though, they only debated how Jesus had raised from the dead (someone stole the body) or how he was able to perform miracles (power of Satan).


However, these tests for the authenticity of a historical document do not summarize everything. Instead, there a few popular questions we must answer.


A. Hasn’t the Bible been changed over time?

There is better manuscript attestation for the Bible than for any other ancient text. In less than 100 years after the creation of the New Testament writings (within the first two centuries AD), there were over 5,600 copies of the New Testament scrolls with 99.5% accuracy within themselves. This means that they did not change any major themes or ideas but only small grammatical issues such as writing “Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ” in one phrase. These mistakes are natural to occur, but the scriptures maintain absolutely incredible accuracy! Therefore, the redaction criticism or the “overzealous monk” theory cannot function, because the original scriptures were so many and so precise with one another. Also, the entire New Testament was preserved in early church fathers’ writings.


B. Hasn’t the Bible been lost through different translations?

The original Bible’s manuscripts (with their 99.5% accuracy) were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. However, all language translations have gone back to the original manuscripts. Therefore, there is no game of “telephone” with changing themes or ideas via word of mouth or varying translations. Instead, translations always go to the original, and readers can choose more word-for-word translations (such as the ESV or NASB), less literal and more culturally conscious translations (such as the NIV or KJV) or idea-by-idea translations (such as the MSG). Either way, the Bible translation went back to the original and will differ very little and only in wording of the very same messages.


2. It’s written by eyewitnesses during the liftetime of other eyewitnesses.

Since the most pertinent controversy is about Jesus Christ and the New Testament, let’s start there. The New Testament scriptures were based completely on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus, the most important documents to look at are the gospels—the first four books of the New Testament which disclosed the birth, ministry, and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Most biblical scholars agree on the following dates. Although some would claim that the gospels were written up to centuries after the events of Jesus’ life, the fall of the temple in AD 70 discredits those claims. Jesus Christ, in the gospels, predicted the destruction of the temple. If the gospels were written after the fulfillment, surely they would have included this fact to further prove the truth of Jesus as Messiah. Because the event was not included, it can be assumed that they were written before that time. In addition, the gospels were written before the book of Acts, and Acts did not include the deaths of James, Peter, or Paul (who died from AD 62-65), although it included the death of Stephen, for example. These prominent figures would have surely been included in the text had it been written after their deaths!

Therefore, the earliest gospel, the book of Mark was probably written from AD 60-75. Mark was probably a disciple of Peter, so he was receiving information from one of the closest disciples to Jesus. This account is also arguably the simplest.

Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and an eyewitness of the events. His book was probably written around AD 50-70, and his book is earliest quoted by Ignatius in AD 115.

Luke probably wrote his account in year 62, as a disciple of Paul. It was written before book of Acts. As a physician and historian, Luke was very precise and careful with details as he worked under the instruction and interviewed his eyewitness.

Finally, the book of John was probably completed in the 90’s, as the last gospel account. John was another eyewitness, a close disciple of Jesus, a friend whom “Jesus loved.”

It is incredibly important to emphasize that these authors wrote just a few decades after Jesus’ death. In the time period, oral tradition was more important, yet these authors chose to document the events. Nobody during that time period claimed it to be a lie; nobody tried to stop them for that reasoning—and there were many witnesses that could have.

Notice, also, why would they die for a lie they made up? Some of them, like Paul, experienced a radical change in their lives, changing from safe to incredibly in danger, for what? Unless it were a true, radical experience, there would be no reason to suffer and die terrible martyr deaths.

3. It reports supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies.

The prophecies of Jesus is a very interesting topic. There are many prophecies that pointed to the coming of a Messiah, which is why the Jews of the time were expecting a conqueror and why some Jewish groups today still awake his coming. The following chart is taken from carm.org concerning the prophecies of the awaited Messiah:

https://carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus

Yes, some of these prophecies could be fulfilled intentionally. For example, he chose to ride a donkey into Jerusalem to make a statement. Many of his teachings also referred to him fulfilling the scriptures “today in their hearing.” He definitely was making a true claim to be the Christ. However, birth, others’ attitudes, details of death, etc. could not be manipulated. Instead, they simply confirm everything that he had claimed in the first place. Statistician Peter Stoner discovered that the chances that a man would fulfill just eight of these prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 27th power. A man fulfilling 48 of these prophecies (as Christ did) would be 1 in 10 to the 157th power.


4. It claims to be divine rather than human in origin.

The Bible itself claims to be “God-breathed,” inspired by God. In Jesus’ teachings, he explains all the time that the words are not his, but his Father’s. Many books have claimed to be of God or of truth. However, do they stand up against this criticism and criteria?

 
OTHER QUESTIONS:


1. Wasn’t the canon chosen by a bunch of old white guys? What about “lost books”?

No, the scriptures were already accepted by early church fathers. However, the councils simply dealt with controversial texts once and for all. For example, the Gnostic gospels, written in the second century, created a completely different understanding of Jesus with the “Gnostic” spin on him. They were written after the original gospels and depicted Christ as a more socially acceptable Greek, esoteric philosopher. Imagine a council meeting today to talk about Thomas Jefferson’s version of the gospel accounts in which he removed all details of the miraculous to make it fit the cultural expectation. Obviously, the council would discredit the account because it wasn’t written by eyewitnesses soon after the events, and it did not agree with their message, but introduced a completely different view due to culture.

Concerning the Apocrypha added in the 16th century, these books do not claim to have inspiration. Neither were they cited in the New Testament as Holy Scripture. Finally, they were rejected by Jews, not only early lists of accepted books, and they include demonstrable errors.


2. What about the Gospel of Q?

There is no proof that this text exists. It has never been found. However, there is a theory that another gospel exists which was used by Matthew and Luke to write their own accounts because they both have some passages that are too similar to be coincidence. They may have both referred to Mark already. They may have referred to each other. The Gospel of Q may even exist! However, nobody in the time period said that their story was inaccurate. In this case, there are still discrepancies and variations that prove that the different accounts have their own perspectives. Why does it matter then, if they borrowed the wording from an original eyewitness source?


3. What about Mithraism?

The Persion myth of Mithra is about a son of God who was born of a virgin, crucified, acted as a blood atonement, and rose again. The claim is that the story of Jesus “borrows” from this myth. However, the story of Jesus actually “borrows” from Old Testament prophecies dating even further back: Zech 12:10, Is 7:14, Ps 22, Lev 17:11, Ps 16:10, Hab 2:4, etc. Again, we have to ask, which New Testament authors would choose to “copy” a myth and then became a martyr for this lost, meaningless cause? Also, the most important fact to recognize is that during the Roman Empire, the “rebirth” concept of mithra was born. The resurrection part of the story primarily dates back to the 2nd century—after Jesus!


4. Documentary hypothesis (JEDP Theory)

This is the theory that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It begin in the 1700s and has adapted over time. However, it is essentially the idea that the Pentateuch was written by multiple authors: the Jehovist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist. The reason why some believe this is because of: the names of God in Genesis, diction/style, duplicate accounts (like creation story), and continuity. However, the New Testament and Jesus himself quotes from the Pentateuch as Moses, so this is a hard belief to swallow as a Bible-believing Christian (now that I’ve established reasons for that!)

References:

Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
Letters from a Skeptic by Gregory A. Boyd
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Online (carm.org)
Why Should I Believe the Bible? By Voddie Baucham (sermon on YouTube)