Should We Trust the Bible?

by Jonathan Sarfati, creation.com

Since Creation Ministries International is based on the Bible, the question arises, why should the Bible be trusted? How should we answer those who claim that it’s been re-written so many times that we no longer have the original? And even if we do, was it written long after the events it claimed to report? Also, does archaeology disprove the Bible? Finally, even if it is true, what’s the point?

Is our New Testament Text Reliable?

Some critics doubt that we even have the original New Testament. This issue can only be settled by using bibliographical tests for reliability, similar to what would be used to judge the Iliad or Caesar’s writings.

The NT was completely written by baptized Jews¹ in the 1st century AD. We have at least 24,000 manuscripts of the NT [Ed. note: 5,824 in the original Greek, according to the latest count by NT scholar Dan Wallace], the earliest of which are dated within 100 years or so of its actual composition. The earliest known manuscript is the John Rylands papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel known as P⁵², containing John 18:31–33, 37–38, dated to c. AD 125. Compare this to other great works (MSS = manuscripts):

Author	Date Written	Earliest MSS	Time Span	No. MSS
Caesar	100–44 BC	AD 900	1,000 yrs	10
Plato	427–347 BC	AD 900	1,200 yrs	7
Thucydides	460–400 BC	AD 900	1,300 yrs	8
Tacitus	AD 100	AD 1100	1,000 yrs	20
Suetonius	AD 75–160	AD 950	800 yrs	8
Homer (Iliad)	900 BC	400 BC	500 yrs	643
New Testament	AD 40–100	AD 125	25–50 yrs	>24,000!

So, by applying the tightest standards scholars can muster (without eliminating all the other classical works), we can conclude that the NT we have is a trustworthy copy of the original.² NT scholar F.F. Bruce (1919–1990) wrote:

“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”³

Reliability of the New Testament content

Given that we have a trustworthy copy of the original, is the original itself trustworthy? Liberal scholars usually argue that the gospels were written long after the events they claim to record. They typically date Mark between AD 65–75, Matthew at mid 80s, Luke and Acts between 83–90 and John about the turn of the first century. So with a time gap of 35–75 years, there is allegedly no chance that the gospels are reliable records.

However, there are cogent arguments by J.A.T. Robinson (1919–1983), who was a liberal and Bishop of Woolwich, for redating the gospels to between AD 40 and 65.⁴ If Robinson is right, the gospels were written in the lifetimes of people who knew Jesus personally (~6 BC – AD ~30 for His earthly lifetime). Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s demise and the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2, Luke 21:20–24) but do not record its fulfilment in AD 70.⁵ Matthew, especially, would not have failed to record yet another fulfilled prophecy if he had written after the event. Acts, written by Luke after he wrote his gospel, mentions neither the fall of Jerusalem, the horrific persecutions under Nero Caesar (mid 60s)—although other persecutions are mentioned—nor the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64) and Peter (65), so was probably written before then.⁶

The Swedish scholar Birger Gerhardsson has shown that the canonical gospels drew on a collective communal memory made strong by the oral teaching methods of the time. These techniques would have enabled ‘very accurate communication between Jesus and his followers’ and would have ensured “excellent semantic recall”.^7,8

So Jesus’ disciples would have been very capable of recording His statements accurately, and they give evidence of having done so honestly. For example, they admit certain facts which forgers probably would have left out (e.g. the cowardice of the disciples, the competition for high places within the Kingdom, Peter’s denial, the failure of Jesus to work many miracles in His hometown of Galilee (because of their unbelief—Matthew 13:58, Mark 6:6), references to accusations against His sanity and parentage, and that He didn’t know the timing of His return.

If the gospels were written by church communities (as many skeptics argue) instead of the four evangelists, it is likely that they would have tried to solve their problems by putting solutions into the mouth of Christ. But the gospels do not mention some of the controversies of the early church (e.g. circumcision), but record things quite irrelevant to a mainly gentile church, such as Christ’s being sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:5–6). Thus the internal evidence points to the gospels being written before many of the Church’s problems arose.

Paul wrote even earlier: the summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15was written in c. AD 55, but Paul says he is reminding them of something he preached to them about 15 years earlier. Therefore Paul records a tradition which was well established within a decade of Christ’s death.

Julius Müller (1801–1878) challenged 19^th century skeptics to show anywhere in history where within 30 years, legends had accumulated around a historical person and become firmly fixed.⁹ But even if one accepts the late dates of most liberals, one must note that Prof. Sherwin-White (1911–1993), the eminent classical historian from Oxford University, has pointed out that legends require a time gap of more than two generations. Therefore, if the Gospels are legendary, the rate of legendary accumulation would need to be “unbelievable”.¹⁰ He wrote:

“For 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.”¹⁰

Also, John claims to be an eye-witness (John 21:24). Luke claims to have relied on eye-witnesses (Luke 1:1–4), and was a companion of the Apostle Paul (Colossians 4:14). He may have been Cleopas’ un-named companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13 ff.).¹¹ Mark relied heavily on Peter, who claimed that he “did not follow cleverly devised tales” (2 Peter 1:16). Matthew, according to early church tradition, was written by the disciple and ex-tax-collector of that name.

Is there any archaeological confirmation for the Bible?

In actual fact, we have many first-century non-Christian historians and writers who confirm the life and execution of Jesus: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, and references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings. Encyclopædia Britannica sums up the force of the data:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19^th, and at the beginning of the 20^th centuries.”

The gospels have also been supported by archaeology. Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939), the archaeologist and professor from Oxford and Cambridge Universities, started investigating Luke’s gospel with the assumption that Luke was mistaken in many areas. But Ramsay discovered time and time again that Luke was absolutely precise about place names and the many varied titles of rulers. Ramsay concluded:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”¹²

The Old Testament has been supported repeatedly by archaeology. The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical myth, but their enormous ancient capital, Hattusa, was discovered at modern Boghazköy. Archaeology has also vindicated the war of four kings vs five in Gen. 14. and Belshazzar’s kingship in Daniel.

Click Link Below to Continue Reading

https://creation.com/should-we-trust-the-bible