This is a good question.
To many, the Bible is an extremely outdated, ancient book that does not really have any relevance today other than for Christians to bash people over the head.
I’d like to present a case as to why it is of the utmost importance to me and millions of other Christians around the world, and why we still find relevance, applicability, and life within, to this day.
When I started writing this piece, I realised I was going to have to split it because there is plenty to get through. Splitting it makes it a bit more bitesize and hopefully if I whet your appetite with this part you’ll be ready for the second instalment. In this post I will build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible, starting with the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. Part 2 will cover what it means if we are convinced of part 1. So here goes:
Part 1 – The Bible gives a true account of what happened in the first century AD, the time when Jesus was alive.
One might argue that for something that happened almost 2000 years ago, we cannot really be certain that any of it happened and we should think that it’s just fables and stories. That might seem reasonable until you look into this a bit more.
When historians want to find out what happened in the past they look for evidence, the same as many other scientific practices. In history, you’re looking for things like:
· How many sources are there?
· Are the sources independent from each other?
· Do the witnesses have anything to gain?
· Do claims fit the historical context?
· When was the testimony recorded?
· Are the sources consistent?
I will take the four gospels as an example, these are the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. If we apply the six questions above to these accounts of the life of Jesus, we begin to see that the stories may not be as farfetched as one might assume.
1) How many sources are there?
The four writers by themselves are not that convincing, however, when we place them in the wider group of those who would have been there at that time, that number increases dramatically. We are told that Jesus had a giant following that transiently followed him physically, as well as those he came into contact with in the numerous towns that he visited. Jesus lived for a time in a place called Capernaum, which was a large town even in those days, everyone there would have known who Jesus was and the things he did and said.
When these four books were circulated around the region of Israel, probably hundreds of people would have had the opportunity to contest the events that were recorded in them, not least the 500 who physically saw Jesus after the resurrection account. Luke in his gospel opens with the words: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1–4)
When these four books were circulated around the region of Israel, probably hundreds of people would have had the opportunity to contest the events that were recorded in them, not least the 500 who physically saw Jesus after the resurrection account.
2) Are the sources independent from each other?
When comparing accounts of events, if details match too much, things start to get a little fishy. If a crime scene investigator interviewed witnesses and their stories are all exactly the same down to the type of knitting on the criminal’s jumper, you have to step back and think, these lot have just cooked up a story.
Whereas, if the witnesses have not had this collusion, you might expect one to say (and we’ll use a bloke as an example) “I think he had short brown hair, he was wearing a blue t-shirt and black jeans and he had some stubble like he hadn’t shaved in a day or so. He was quite tall” The second one comes and says “He was thin, had a purple t-shirt, jeans, white Nike trainers and he had a beard the same length as his hair.” Then again witness three says, “He was an older guy, he had black trousers and a Timberland t-shirt on. Black hair with stubble, probably medium height, and had old brown trainers on.
Now, some of these details are quite different, one might argue that some details contradict others; but do they? We see things slightly differently, especially in a circumstance where we don’t get lots of time to see them! The trainers may have been white once but are now so old they’re brown, does that make either detail wrong? He might seem tall because he’s skinny, does that mean one got the height wrong and the other didn’t? Probably not. The accounts differ on hair and face but all added together, the details are likely enough to identify the man as having dark stubble and not much hair (albeit dark!)
When we apply this to the gospel accounts there are a few details that don’t seem to match, at least on the surface, but the main parts do, the meaning behind words match, and the locations and geographical indicators do. Whether a specific person said one thing or someone else said something else at the same event is neither here nor there, it’s just a different viewpoint. No doubt someone in a crowd would be able to identify where Jesus bought his tunics, just like the witness who wasn’t interested in the colour of the criminal’s t-shirt, only the fact it was Timberland.
3) Do the witnesses have anything to gain?
Repeatedly the authors of the gospels say things about themselves that most of us would want to hide or avoid. Take the example of Simon Peter, the proxy leader of Jesus’ chosen 12 followers who on the same night he swore never to abandon Jesus, then denied that he even knew him three times to a servant girl. If I were him I would want to keep that bit out (Mark wrote on behalf of Peter btw). The gospels are full of Jesus rebuking the disciples for being stubborn, blind to his messages, lacking faith in him, and doubting him. They are not painting themselves in a very good light.
Now then comes an interesting detail. When Jesus arose (in their accounts) from the tomb where he had been laid after he died, the first people to see him were a group of women.* This is significant because in those days and in Jewish culture in the first century AD, legal witnesses needed to be two or three at a minimum, and the accounts of women were never valid. To even mention that Jesus appeared first to a group of women would not even cross the minds of the writers, more likely they would have skipped over this detail until Jesus eventually appeared to some men. But they didn’t, and the only reason for this must have been because it did happen, and they thought it was significant. (btw, what an awesome kudos to women’s rights by the big JC here)
Finally on this point, the gospel writers and early church who accepted these books as true did so knowing that it was unpopular both among their friends and family, the leaders of the Jewish nation at the time, and the regional superpower of the Roman empire. The early Christians faced atrocious persecution, beatings, rejection, torture, and in many cases very painful, public, and shameful deaths for holding to the truth of the gospels.
So, did the gospel writers have anything to gain? Or the Early Church who endorsed them? Only the truth, because everything else was absolutely not gain.
the gospel writers and early church who accepted these books as true did so knowing that it was unpopular both among their friends and family, the leaders of the Jewish nation at the time, and the regional superpower of the Roman empire. The early Christians faced atrocious persecution, beatings, rejection, torture, and in many cases very painful, public, and shameful deaths for holding to the truth of the gospels.
*The fact that Jesus died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans and was buried in a stone tomb is accounted in many other, non-biblical sources
4) Do claims fit the historical context?
There are many details in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament that match sources from outside the Bible by people writing at the same time. Dates, times, Roman emperors, the death of Jesus itself, and the account of people following 'The Way' (what Christians were called before the term Christian was coined). There are also a lot of details that would have been unknown to anyone that was not intimately acquainted with this exact area, region, and culture. There is a story of a man who was healed in the pool of Bethesda, where the water was said to be “stirred up” (John 5:7). There was a myth that an angel of the Lord stirred up the water and whoever got in the pool first would be healed. This is not something that someone without intimate knowledge of the local culture would know.
Many towns are mentioned such as Chorazin and Cana that would have otherwise been completely unknown outside the region. Details such as the fact that one has to go uphill to Jerusalem, and the journey from Cana to Capernaum was downhill, required experience and knowledge of the terrain. The intimate knowledge of topography, culture, and geography is unrivalled, even by Josephus, the most famous Jewish historian of the same era.[1] Luke’s gospel is by far the most historically minded as he built his book up from many eyewitnesses and he gives dates and times that events happened consistently with the actual facts as recorded elsewhere in the Bible and in non-Biblical sources. Basically, it’s pretty watertight contextually!
5) When was the testimony created?
Although extremely hard to pin down exactly when the books were written and circulated, scholars have determined all of the gospels were completed by 95 AD. Mark is the earliest written 53-55, in this same period Matthew published his gospel, then Luke wrote in 62, and finally John in 96-98.
Bearing in mind Jesus was killed in 33AD, the first gospel account was written just 20 or so years afterward. We don’t have the original copies but we do have fragments of copies (called manuscripts) from roughly 100-150AD. This may seem like a long time after but for that era, it’s not long at all. For instance, Eusebius who wrote The History of the Church in the early 4th Century AD accounts for the beginnings of the Christian church spanning from the apostles to his own time in detail more than adequate and to which there is no contest, but just under 300 years later. For another side-on example, the works of Plato that critics count as reliable, the earliest manuscript date from around 895AD, over a thousand years after Plato died.
The writers were eyewitnesses or very close associates of eyewitnesses of the events writing within a century of the events, for which we have manuscripts mere decades after the originals would have been written. All these things together make a pretty good case for the timeline of the gospel writings.
6) Are the sources consistent?
This might seem similar to question 2 but the difference is, do the accounts stand the test of time? We have to ask the question, have any of the details changed, did any of the authors or other eyewitnesses recant their testimony of events after they were written down? Judging by the violent deaths faced by many of the disciples for not doing just this, we are faced with the answer, no. The book I mentioned earlier The History of the Church gives a vast and accurate account of just how horrific the treatment of early Christians was. Under immense pressure, there was no 'changing the story' or relenting on the (admittedly quite incredible) truth of the events. With this in mind, we can with good reason be confident that we have the original, unadulterated words of the gospel writers giving us an assurance that the testimonies remain unchanged and consistent.
Just a final word on the copies of manuscripts as I’m guessing that might be an initial question. The manuscripts of the Bible go through a process called Textual Criticism meaning that the variations (differences) made by the many copyists over the years are counteracted. We analyse all the manuscripts against each other and deduce the modal, most consistent, and most likely original words. If you like the works of Shakespeare, or our old friend Plato, you have a textual critic to thank because we do not have the original copies, it happens everywhere.
For comparison, we have about 250 manuscripts of Plato as I’ve already mentioned the earliest being from around 900AD, over a millennium after Plato died. There are to date roughly 5600 biblical manuscripts, the earliest of which are from only decades after the originals. That gives us a crazy high-reliability factor and assurance that we have the original words of the gospel writers.
Stay tuned for part 2 where I will explore what it means for us if we find the historical accuracy of the Bible to be convincing, and why the Bible then is such an important part of the Christian’s life.
[1] Jones, Timothy P. Why Should I Trust the Bible? Fearn, UK: Christian Focus, 2019.
Comentários