Why do I trust the Bible to be historically reliable?
Concerning the historicity of the New Testament, there are three relevant points to consider.
1. The Time Gap - the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world.
2. The Number of Manuscripts - the number of existing manuscripts of the New Testament, as compared to other writings from the ancient world.
3. Quotes - quotes of the New Testament from early Christian writings.
1. The Time Gap:
The original manuscripts of the New Testament have long since dissolved, as with the other original works from the ancient world. Before the originals disappeared, copies were made in order to make the works more accessible. Invariably, these copies began to dissolve due primarily to the physical deterioration of the materials upon which they were written. Thus a time gap developed between when the original work was written and the oldest existing (referred to as extant, the opposite of extinct) copy of the original. All things being equal, the closer the copy is to the original, the more accurate it is regarded as being, presumably because there has been less time for mistakes to creep in during transmission.
With this in mind, how does the New Testament compare with other works from the ancient world regarding the time gap?[8] There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are read today. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from this writing of Thucydides. The earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, making a time gap of 1,300 years. The Roman historian Suetonius lived around AD 70 to AD 140. The earliest copy of his work The Twelve Caesars dates around AD 950, making a time gap of about 800 years. In the chart below you can see the time gaps of other works from the ancient world.
Author When Written Earliest Copy Time Span # of copies
Caesar 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Tacitus AD 100 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20
Pliny AD 61 - 113 850 AD 750 years 7
(History)
Herodotus 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
(History)
Aristotle 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
How does the time gap of the New Testament compare to these works? There are a number of manuscripts of the New Testament which, for all practical purposes, eliminates any significant time gap. The John Ryland Manuscript, located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England and the oldest known fragment of the New Testament, is dated AD 130, within 40 years of the original. It contains fragments of the gospel of John.
Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri[10], containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus[11], dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon says
The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text.[12]
Kenyon goes on to rightly conclude
... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound.[13]
2. The Number of manuscripts:
Not only does a comparison of the time gap show that the New Testament is unparalleled in the ancient world, but a comparison of the number of manuscripts shows the superiority of the New Testament as well. Many works of the ancient world are preserved in just a few manuscripts. There are seven manuscripts of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and eight of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars. The chart above also shows the number of manuscripts of other ancient works.
The number of New Testament manuscripts by comparison is overwhelming. There are in existence around 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 Latin, and 1,000 versions from other languages, making 14,000 manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament.
The significance of having a larger number of manuscripts as far as confirming the integrity of the text is this: the greater the number of manuscripts of an ancient document, the more certain the reading of the original can be ascertained. Suppose someone gave you a copy of a telegram written to you which said
"You have won one million #ollars!"[14]
As you read the copy you feel quite certain that what you have won is one million dollars, and that the number sign was merely a copyist's error. However, suppose that you received another copy of the telegram which read
"You have won one &illion dollars!"
With this additional copy you are more certain of your conclusion about the original telegram, since the 'd' is present in the second copy where it was missing from the first, and the 'm' is present in the first where it is missing from the second.
It is in this manner that literary scholars ascertain the reading of the original writing of an ancient document. Obviously, the more manuscripts in existence to cross reference, the more reliable your reading of the original can be. Thus, with the New Testament, it can be concluded
It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament.[15]
3. Quotes:
All that we have said thus far puts the historical reliability of the New Testament beyond all doubt. What we have is what they wrote. But the case for the integrity of the New Testament does not stop there. During the first generation of Christian leaders, referred to as the Church Fathers, we find numerous quotes of the New Testament from their personal correspondence. For example, Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD 150 - AD 212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the New Testament. Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage and who lived around AD 160 - AD 220, quotes the New Testament 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, 330 quotes; Irenaeus, 1,819 quotes; Origen, 17,922 quotes, Hippolytus, 1,378 quotes; and Eusebius, 5,176 quotes, making a total of 36,289 quotes of the New Testament.
What is interesting and significant about these numerous quotes of the New Testament is that you could destroy all the manuscripts of the New Testament, and destroy all the New Testaments in existence in the world, and you could reproduce all but eleven verses of the New Testament from these quotes of the Church Fathers.
Thus, when it comes to checking and cross checking the readings of the New Testament, it stands as the most historically attested to work of the ancient world.
Conclusion:
The first of several steps has been taken to establish the case for Christianity. There can be no doubt that the New Testament we have today is as it was written by the original writers. Our next task will be to defend the notion that it is reasonable to believe that what they wrote actually took place.
Is the Bible historically accurate?
How reasonable is our faith.
The argument consists of three premises:
1. The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
2. On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
3. Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.
Our previous discussion covered the first part of premise one by answering the question "Is the Bible that we have today an accurate copy of the original Bible?" In other words, "Do we have what they wrote?" We discovered that a comparison of the New Testament with other works from the ancient world regarding (1) the time gap between when the document was written and the oldest existing manuscripts, and (2) the number of manuscripts which still exists, shows that by all standards of historical analysis, the New Testament is historically substantiated.
(3) Additionally, the overwhelming number of quotes from the early Christians establishes that the text of the New Testament as we have it today is as it was originally written.[1]
The Authenticity of the New Testament:
In this discussion I want to take the next step in establishing the case for Christianity, which will complete our defence of premise one. The question I want to address is "Did what the biblical writers wrote really happen?" It is not enough to know that the New Testament we have today is the New Testament as it was originally written. We have to show why it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament events actually took place. To this end, I want to discuss several points by way of introduction and then look specifically at the eyewitness testimony.
First, some objections against the historical authenticity of the Bible are philosophical, not historical. I discussed this point in the last newsletter in the section entitled "History and Philosophy." Its importance cannot be overstressed. Too much time and energy can be wasted in trying to defend philosophical points with the tools of historical analysis. It does no good to argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus if your opponent denies the possibility of miracles. Whether miracles can occur is not an historical issue but a philosophical one. The arguments and evidences needed in order to establish a philosophical point are different than the arguments and evidences needed in order to establish an historical point. In this series, I am not addressing the philosophical problems associated with Christianity. Those questions are important but require a separate treatment.
Second, some object that writers from the ancient world were not interested in accurate history, thus the New Testament cannot be taken as reliable history. As C.S.Lewis has said, this objection amounts to a sort of "chronological snobbery." As "modern" thinkers, we somehow have gotten the notion that "ancient" writers are "pre-scientific" and thus are uninterested in accuracy. This is simply a misreading of history. Though it may be true that ancient writers lacked the instruments of technology to assess their experience as precisely as we are able, it nevertheless remains that eyewitness testimony meant as much to the ancients as it does to us. This is especially true with the Hebrews. The writings from other ancient historians show that ancient writers understood the differences between history and myth. In the technical sense, a myth was a story used to illustrate certain principles. For the most part, the details, historicity, or authenticity of the myth were irrelevant to the significance of the principles. In this regard, the New Testament is most certainly not myth, nor was it ever offered as one by the writers. As far as the biblical writers were concerned, the historical accuracy of the events was absolutely indispensable to the truth and significance of the Christian faith. As Paul argues:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.[2]
Third, the historical testimonies of New Testament events, particularly of the life of Jesus, are from contemporary eyewitnesses to the events. It is important to bear in mind that the events recorded in the New Testament are attested to by those who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the events. According to the arguments that were set forth in the last newsletter, we have in our possession today the accounts of these eyewitnesses. Thus, the evidence for the authenticity of these events will have everything to do with the notions of weighing the reliability of those who claim to be eyewitnesses.[3]
Eyewitness Testimony
The crux of the matter of the New Testament's authenticity is the reliability of the New Testament writers as eyewitnesses to the events. In establishing their reliability there are several points to consider. First, it is reasonable to believe that the witnesses to the New Testament events were willing and able to tell the truth. The early followers of Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by claiming what they did about Him.
Generally, the reliability of eyewitness testimony can be mitigated if it can be shown that the witness has a vested interest in what he is claiming to have seen. But early Christianity was certainly not the lucrative enterprise it sometimes is today. There is no reason to suppose that the writers of the New Testament would fabricate the events of the New Testament since they had nothing to gain. Not only was there nothing to gain, but there was everything to lose by claiming what they did about Jesus. It was their Christian commitment that brought about the martyrdom of possibly every New Testament writer except John. Generally, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is strengthened if it can be shown that the witness has a vested interest in the opposite of what he is claiming. For example, one probably would not doubt a child who confessed to a misdeed that certainly would elicit a spanking from the parent. Since the child has a vested interest in the misdeed not occurring, if he admits to it and risks a spanking, then it is reasonable to believe that the child is telling the truth . Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers claimed to witness what they did is that in fact they did witness it.
Second, the presence of adverse testimony (i.e., the testimony of those who could have contradicted the New Testament writers if the events had not taken place) would have hampered the spread of Christianity. In other words, if the witnesses' testimonies were false, others would have been able to contradict and squelch the growth of Christianity. It is interesting that the enemies of Christianity did not so much try to contradict the claims of the early Christians about such events as, for example, the resurrection, as they instead tried to offer other explanations for the events. Matthew 28:12-15 tells us:
When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
If it had not been the case that Jesus had risen from the dead, there certainly would have been overwhelming testimony to that effect. Indeed, the early Christians sometimes appealed to the knowledge of current events of their hearers in making their case for Christianity. Notice how Paul argues here before Festus in Acts 26:24-26:
Now as he thus made his defence, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are beside yourself. Much learning is driving you mad!" But he said, "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason. For the king, before whom I also speak freely, knows these things; for I am convinced that none of these things escapes his attention, since this thing was not done in a corner."
Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the claims of the New Testament writers flourished right in the area where the events allegedly took place is that they indeed took place.
These and other evidences that could be marshaled make it more than reasonable to believe the veracity of the eyewitness testimony. However, the case for the authenticity of the New Testament does not stop here. It can be shown that the New Testament bears what some have called the "earmarks of historicity."
The Earmarks of Historicity[5]
The "earmarks of historicity" are particular characteristics which indicate the historical authenticity of documents. When scholars examine historical narrative, they took for indicators which point to historical authenticity. There are several examples of these historical characteristics in the New Testament. First, Jesus' sayings bear a literary form that was not used in the early church when the Gospels were written down. The Gospel writers have Jesus speaking in memorizable form common among Rabbis, and they have Him using expressions such as verily, verily (amen, amen, truly, truly). The significance of these characteristics is that these literary forms were not used by writers of the time of the Gospels.[6] One can not explain why the writers have Jesus talking the way He does by claiming that this was the way the writers themselves talked. It was not. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus talking the way He does is that He really talked that way.
Second, there is material in the Gospel accounts that was irrelevant to any issues in the early church. For example, by the time the Gospel accounts were written, there were no controversies regarding the Sabbath. One can not explain the content of the Gospel accounts on the basis of the needs of the early church. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers have Jesus discussing the Sabbath with the Pharisees is that He really had these discussions.
Third, there is material lacking in the Gospel accounts that would have been extremely relevant to the needs of the early church. If the Gospels were made up by the writers, one would expect that they would have construed the story in a way that would have been most advantageous to themselves. But this is not so. For example, there is nothing in Jesus' teachings on circumcision, on gifts such as tongues, nor on food laws such as eating meat sacrificed to idols. Surely if the writers were going to fabricate a story about Jesus, they would have had Jesus explicitly teaching on these subjects that were so controversial in their own situation so as to settle them once and for all. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament writers do not have Jesus teaching on such matters is that He "eyewitreally" never taught on them.
These and other evidences that could be marshaled make it more than reasonable to believe the historical authenticity of the New Testament. However, the case for the authenticity of the New Testament does not stop here either. Evidence can be introduced from outside the New Testament that points to its historical authenticity.
Extra Biblical References
Sometimes uninformed critics of the Bible, particularly of the New Testament, claim that since there are no references outside the New Testament to events of the New Testament, therefore the New Testament testimony is suspect. The truth is that there are several references to New Testament events outside the New Testament. For example, Suetonius, in his The Twelve Caesars says:
Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Crestus [a Latin reference to Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city.[11]
Compare this reference to Acts 18:2 which clearly refers to the same event.
And he [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Another clear reference outside the New Testament to a New Testament event is found by the Roman historian Tacitus in his work The Annals of Imperial Rome.
"To suppress this rumour [that the massive fires of Rome had been deliberately set by men], Nero fabricated scapegoats - and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in
Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus.
The Jewish historian Josephus (ca. 90-95 AD) mentions the martyrdom of the apostle James, refers to James as Jesus' brother, mentions the martyrdom of John the Baptist, and mentions Jesus a second time. Other references include the Roman historian Thallus (ca. 52 AD) as quoted by Julius Africanus concerning the darkness at the crucifixion, the Roman author and administrator Pliny the Younger's (ca. 112 AD) mention of the early Christians' worship of Christ, and historical references from the Roman Emperors Trajan and Hadrian.
These and other references I could cite prove the charge that there are no extra biblical references to New Testament events is false, and thus provide corroborating evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament.
Conclusion:
We are now finished with the defense of our first premise. With these two newsletters, we have established that the New Testament is a basically reliable document of history. Our task now is to build a cumulative case for who Jesus is, based on this historical testimony. In the meantime, perhaps it would be encouraging to be reminded of what we are supposed to do with all this information. Though this sounds like the kind of question one would expect at the end of the series, perhaps it would be better to go ahead and address it in the midst of our discussions so that you can see the practical importance of what sometimes may appear as academic tedium. There are several important applications of this information. Probably the most important use of this apologetics information is to help change other people's minds.
May the Lord give us opportunities to share and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, that by His grace, those who are lost may see and believe His truth.
How do we know that the Bible we have today can be trusted?
The Bible claims to be God's unique communication to mankind. Billions of men and women have based their lives on its message. Millions have died for it.
Can an intelligent person believe in the Bible?
Yes. The Bible is not a book of fables. Unlike other spiritual books, it does not demand blind faith. Multiple categories of evidence support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as its claim to divine authorship.
Ancient history supports the Bible's accuracy as a historical record.
The Gospels provide multiple reliable accounts of Jesus' life.
Archaeology backs up the Biblical account.
Textual scholarship confirms that the books of the Bible have not changed since they were first written.
Does ancient history agree with the Bible?
If the Bible is God's message to us, we should hope its version of history is accurate. It is.
For example, the Bible reports that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was executed by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Numerous ancient historians corroborate the Bible's account of the life of Jesus and his followers:
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world. An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves.
Are the gospel accounts of Jesus reliable?
Secular historians recorded the general facts of Jesus' life, but his close associates made more detailed reports based on direct eyewitness testimony. These are called the four gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can we be sure these biographies of Jesus are accurate?
When historians try to determine if a biography is reliable, they ask, "How many other sources report the same details about this person?" Here's how this works. Imagine you are collecting biographies of President John F. Kennedy. You find many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and almost all of the biographies report similar facts. But what if you found one biography reporting that JFK lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? The other biographies had him in the U.S. at the time; a sensible historian would go with the accounts that agree with one another.
Regarding Jesus of Nazareth, do we find multiple biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. While they don't redundantly cover all of the same information, the four gospels tell essentially the same story:
Matthew Mark Luke John
Jesus was born of a virgin 1:18-25 - 1:27, 34 -
He was born in Bethlehem 2:1 - 2:4 -
He lived in Nazareth 2:23 1:9, 24 2:51, 4:16 1:45, 46
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist 3:1-15 1:4-9 3:1-22 -
He performed miracles of healing 4:24, etc. 1:34 4:40, 9:7
He walked on water 14:25 6:48 - 6:19
He fed five thousand people with
five loaves and two fish 14:7 6:38 9:13 6:9
Jesus taught the common people 5:1 4:25, 7:28 9:11 18:20
He spent time with social outcasts 9:10, 21:31 2:15, 16 5:29, 7:29 8:3
He argued with the religious elite 15:7 7:6 12:56 8:1-58
The religious elite plotted to kill him 12:14 3:6 19:47 11:45-57
They handed Jesus over to the Romans 27:1, 2 15:1 23:1 18:28
Jesus was flogged 27:26 15:15 - 19:1
He was crucified 27:26-50 15:22-37 23:33-46 19:16-30
He was buried in a tomb 27:57-61 15:43-47 23:50-55 19:38-42
Jesus rose from the dead and
appeared to his followers 28:1-20 16:1-20 24:1-53 20:1-31
Two of the gospels were written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus' life.
Each of the four gospel writers made a very detailed account. As you would expect from multiple biographies of a real person, there is variation in the style but agreement in the facts. We know the authors were not simply making things up, because the gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
Jesus' recorded words leave out many topics the early church would have liked a statement on. This indicates that the biographers were honest, not putting words in Jesus' mouth to suit their own interests.
Has the Bible changed and become corrupted over time?
Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6
The New Testament is humanity's most reliable ancient document. Its textual integrity is more certain than that of Plato's writings or Homer's Iliad. For a comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings, click here.
The Old Testament has also been remarkably well preserved. Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures.
Does archaeology support the Bible?
Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.
The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.
In contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see 'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons, names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Many of the ancient locations mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."
Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."11
Another major archaeological find confirmed an early alphabet in the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in 1974. These 14,000 clay tablets are thought to be from about 2300 B.C., hundreds of years before Abraham. The tablets describe the local culture in ways similar to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.
Archaeology consistently confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND SIGNIFICANCE
Mari Tablets Over 20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to
Abraham's time period, explain many of the patriarchal
traditions of Genesis.
Ebla Tablets Over 20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the
Deuteronomy law code. The previously thought fictitious five
cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah,
Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
Nuzi Tablets They detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to
the patriarchal accounts such as maids producing children
for barren wives.
Black Stele Proved that writing and written laws existed three centuries
before the Mosaic laws.
Temple Walls of Karnak, Egypt Signifies a 10th century BC reference to Abraham.
Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)
Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)
Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC) Show that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too
sophisticated for that period.
Ras Shamra Tablets Provide information on Hebrew poetry.
Lachish Letters Describe Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give
insight into the time of Jeremiah.
Gedaliah Seal References Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
Cyrus Cylinder Authenticates the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to
allow the Jews to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem (see
2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).
Moabite Stone Gives information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III Illustrates how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the
Assyrian king.
Taylor Prism Contains an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack
on Jerusalem during the time of Hezekiah, king of
Israel.
Are there contradictions in the Bible?
While some claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity. They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.
Here is an example of a so-called contradiction. Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews."
The wording is different, hence the apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all thee writers describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of the sign is the same in all three accounts!
What about the exact wording? In the original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)
Jesus was killed on Friday and the resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.
This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination of the text itself or through studying the historical background.
Who wrote the New Testament? Why not accept the apocrypha, the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of Thomas?
There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.
The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles.
The content of the New Testament books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves. When other books were written hundreds of years later (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, written by the Gnostic sect around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as forgeries. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.13
In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.
Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New Testament Gospels to be written?
The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry.14
However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars date the writing of the Gospels between 30 and 60 years after Jesus' death.
Luke gives us a little more insight into this by stating, at the beginning of his Gospel, why he was writing it: "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 to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught.15
John also gives the reason for writing his Gospel: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."16
Have you ever read anything from the New Testament Gospels? To read a sample from the Gospel of John, click here.
If you would like to know more about Jesus, this article will give you a good summary of his life: Beyond Blind Faith.
Does it matter if Jesus really did and said what is in the Gospels?
Yes. For faith to really be of any value, it must be based on facts, on reality. Here is why. If you were taking a flight to London, you would probably have faith that the jet is fueled and mechanically reliable, the pilot trained, and no terrorists on board. Your faith, however, is not what gets you to London. Your faith is useful in that it got you on the plane. But what actually gets you to London is the integrity of the plane, pilot, etc. You could rely on your positive experience of past flights. But your positive experience would not be enough to get that plane to London. What matters is the object of your faith -- is it reliable?
Is the New Testament an accurate, reliable presentation of Jesus? Yes. We can trust the New Testament because there is enormous factual support for it. This article touched on the following points: historians concur, archaeology concurs, the four Gospel biographies are in agreement, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is superior accuracy in the translations. All of this gives a solid foundation for believing what we read in the New Testament: that Jesus is God, that he took the penalty for our sins, and that he rose from the dead.
