Are the Writings of the Bible Reliable and Accurate?

The evidence is written below. However, in order to help you realize that the Bible is a historical truth (and the Truth), I want to first make a brief comparison to ancient Greece, which has already been accepted as a historical truth. In A Brief History of Ancient Greece, third edition (Oxford University Press), the authors of the book begin by claiming that “the history of the ancient Greeks is one of the most improbable success stories in world history.” As improbable as it may have been, I would like to present the argument that the history of GOD’s people – the Jews – is the most improbable success story in world history!

“By every known sociological law, the Jews should have perished long ago.”

~Carl Mayer

The Biblical writers would have gone further, contending that by every known sociological law, the Jews should not have become a distinct people in the first place. They were an unlikely pick; they were the underdogs. Israel came into being as a nation through an extraordinary occurrence, in which a milling band of slaves somehow broke the shackles of the tyrant of their day and were lifted to the status of a free and self-respecting people. Almost immediately afterwards they were brought to an understanding of GOD that was far above that of their neighbors, and deduced from it standards of morality and justice that still challenge the world today. Through the thousands of years that followed, the chosen people have continued their existence in the face of unbelievable odds and adversity, and have contributed to civilization out of all proportion to the numbers. Either the credit belongs to the Jews themselves, or it belongs to GOD. Given this alternative, it is extremely difficult to believe that the Jews should receive the credit. And of course, from Judaism came the Branch that is the Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek) – Jesus! And because of Jesus, we have the Bible.

[Extra curriculum reading: Is Judaism and Christianity complementary or contradictory?]

In the introduction of A Brief History of Ancient Greece, the authors readily admit that historians who study ancient civilizations often come to their conclusions based on “scant sources”; however, they proudly proclaim that ancient Greece “left us a comparatively rich record.”

Responding to the points that prove the veracity of their text as being historically reliable and accurate, I found it easy to use the authors’ own words to make the case for Christianity in general, and the Bible in particular.

In reference to the “virtually indestructible” clay pots that have been excavated amongst other items by archaeologists, I say this: The pot was able to hold more than the potter ever intended for it to hold and capable of storing more than he ever imagined. If the potter would have known that his creation could hold the historic time period in which he lived, what would he have placed inside that pot? And would he have stored it in an aryballoi (perfume flask) or maybe a pithoi (much larger pot)?

In reference to how the written records make for a solid case due to them having been written and “copied by hand” with dedication and also yet preserved so well that what survived is “something of a miracle”, I say this: The soil of Greece may not have been “good for preserving things”, but what about a Qumran cave? Weren’t the Dead Sea Scrolls found within a clay pot? In this case, I believe the Potter knew the potential of His creation. That particular pot held more than mere words – it stored sacred Scripture and did so securely for centuries. “Wordless objects can tell us only so much about how people lived, what they experienced, or what they thought.” Thus, the “It is written” of the Bible is the necessary revelation of GOD and the chosen method for what has been revealed.

As the story goes, a shepherd of the Ta’amireh tribe left his flock of sheep and goats to search for a stray. Isn’t it interesting that the Biblical concept of the Shepherd leaving His flock to seek the lost is how Biblical text was found? Isn’t it interesting that a shepherd would be used for GOD’s glory? Isn’t it interesting that a book written to essentially glorify Greece still ended up glorifying GOD as the Potter and the Shepherd and also His written Word? Truly, the written Word is more than “something of a miracle” – it is a miracle!

[Extra curriculum reading: Miracles or Myths?]

So, is the Bible reliable and accurate? Yes. How do we know? See for yourself:

The Old Testament:

The reliability and accuracy of the Hebrew text can be determined from available manuscript evidence. Over two thousand years of copying the text (500 BC – AD 1500), Jewish scholars performed an unbelievable preservation of the textual traditions. In Judaism, a succession of scholars were charged with standardizing and preserving the biblical text. With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, however, it was not scribal accuracy alone that guaranteed their final outcome. Rather, it was their reverence for Scriptures. According to the Talmud, not only were there specifications for the kind of skins to be used and the size of the columns, but there was even a religious ritual necessary for the scribe to perform before writing the name of GOD. Rules governed the kind of ink used, dictated the spacing of words, and prohibited writing anything from memory. The lines, and even the letters, were counted methodically. If a manuscript was found to contain even one mistake, it was discarded and destroyed. This scribal formalism was responsible, at least in part, for the extreme care exercised in copying the Scriptures. It was also the reason there were only a few manuscripts (as the rules demanded the destruction of defective copies).

It is estimated that the total number of Old Testament Hebrew manuscript fragments throughout the world runs into the tens of thousands. In 1979, “The Silver Scrolls” (two tiny silver scrolls) were found in a tomb in Jerusalem. They date from the seventh century BC and are the oldest known fragments of the Old Testament and the first known reference to GOD’s sacred name (YHWH) – Yahweh. There are many other important documents which aid in the reliability of the Old Testament, including the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. The most significant Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts date from between the third century BC and the fourteenth century AD. Of these the most remarkable manuscripts are those of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century BC to the first century AD. They include one complete Old Testament book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have Hebrew manuscripts one thousand years earlier than the Great Masoretic manuscripts, enabling them to check on the fidelity of the Hebrew text. There is a word-for-word identity in more than 95% of the cases, and the 5% variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and spelling. The numerous cross-checks from outside and inside the text provide overwhelming support for the reliability and accuracy of the Old Testament text.

The New Testament:

Both internal evidence and external evidence provide reason to believe the New Testament is authentic, reliable, and accurate.

Internal Evidence:

There are 27 New Testament books written by nine writers (unless one of the authors also wrote Hebrews). An exhaustive examination of the New Testament points toward authenticity. Consider the following:

• The authors did not attempt to synchronize or harmonize the details of the accounts they reported. Matthew 20 states that Jesus healed two blind men, but Mark 10 states that Jesus healed one blind man, named Bartimaeus. They are not contradictions; rather, they are merely different perspectives. Mark focused on the blind beggar he knew (Bartimaeus). Matthew focused on both blind men who remained nameless. Where there are two, there will be one. While it is easy to harmonize such details, the authors did not. Even the authors of A Brief History of Ancient Greece agree: “The ancient historians, no different from us really, aimed to convey only what they deemed historically significant. Because they selected some facts to the exclusion of others, even two roughly contemporary historians – the fifth-century Herodotus and Thucydides, for example – would necessarily produce different accounts of the same past events.”
• The authors included demanding sayings and teachings that were difficult to comprehend, such as when Christ told his followers they should eat his ‘flesh’ and drink his ‘blood.’ Many followers left that day. (And of course, it is not to be taken literal – Jesus did not command others to be cannibals and devour Him.)
• The authors reported many self-incriminating or embarrassing details about themselves in order to accurately convey Truth.
• They did not deny their testimony under threat of death. While it is true that many people have died for a lie, all of them died believing it to be true. The martyred disciples don’t prove that Jesus is who He claimed, but it does prove that the disciples believed wholeheartedly that their belief was worth sacrifice.
• The authors wrote that women witnessed the resurrection before men. In spite of the fact that this was a patriarchal culture and that a woman’s testimony counted only half as much as a man’s in court, the Gospels do not hesitate to affirm that the first two sets of witnesses to the resurrection were women.
• The authors challenged readers to check out the facts.
• Long-held Jewish beliefs were suddenly discarded to accept Christ’s deity.
• The New Testament includes more than 30 historical people.

External Evidence:

Just as Archaeology has aided to affirm the Old Testament, archaeology also has corroborated the essential reliability of the New Testament. Those who know the facts will readily recognize the New Testament for being a remarkably accurate source book. Consider the following examples:

• The arch of Titus, who conquered Jerusalem in AD 70, was discovered. It shows the Romans carrying away the Jewish menorah from the temple.
• Tombs, like the ones described in the Gospels with a stone rolled in front to seal it, have been discovered. There was even one discovered in Jerusalem.
• Of course, numerous other sites of Jesus’ time have been unearthed and verified, including a synagogue at Capernaum, the cities of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Bethany, and Jerusalem, along with the Mount of Olives with trees dating back to the first century. And of course, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, and numerous other sites from the time of Christ can be listed.

Archaeologist, Nelson Glueck, boldly asserted that “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”

Luke, known as Paul’s “beloved physician,” wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Luke, who wrote one-quarter of the New Testament, has been found to be a scrupulously accurate historian, even in the smallest details. Consider the two following examples (one from Luke, one from Acts):

• In Luke 3:1-2, it is written that Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. Lysanias was unknown to modern historians until an inscription was found recording a temple dedication that mentions the name and the title and is in the right place. The inscription is dated between AD 14-29, easily compatible with the beginnings of John’s ministry, which Luke dates by Lysanians’ reign. In addition, Luke 3:1-2 provides an exact date (AD 29), all eight people named are known from history, and all were known to live at this exact time.
• In Acts 18:12-17, the designation of Gallio as proconsul of Archaia was originally thought to be impossible; however, an inscription at Delphi notes this exact title for the man and dates him to the time at which Paul was in Corinth (AD 51).

In addition to the two previous examples, Luke gave correct titles for the following officials:

• the proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:7-8)
• the politarchs of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6)
• the temple wardens of Ephesus (Acts 19:35)
• the first man of the island of Malta (Acts 28:7)

Each of the four previous examples has been confirmed by Roman usage. In all, Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands without a single error in his documentation. The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. In fact, Luke’s accuracy led the prominent historian, Sir William Ramsay, to recant his earlier critical views and he said that   “the narrative [of Acts] showed marvelous truth.”

In full agreement, Roman historian, A. N. Sherwin-White, said, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”

Another Roman historian, Colin. J. Hemer, has cataloged numerous archaeological and historical confirmations of Luke’s accuracy. For brevity, may it suffice to say that the historical evidence supports Luke to be a credible source of information.

Luke was shown to be a first-rate historian because of the following:

• minute geographical details known to be accurate
• specialized details known only to special groups
• specifics of not widely known routes, places, and officials
• correlation of dates in Acts with general history
• details appropriate to that period but not others
• events that reflect a sense of “immediacy”
• idioms and culture that bespeak of a firsthand awareness
• verification of numerous details of times, people, and events of that period best known by contemporaries

Traditional dating of the book of Acts is somewhere around AD 62 and the book of Luke around AD 61. This is so because of many reasons, but five reasons alone should suffice:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Knowing the importance of that event, that is an unlikely omission.
2. There is no reference to the Jewish War in AD 66; in addition, there was no mention of any drastic or specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies it was written before that time.
3. There is no hint of Nero’s persecutions (AD 65).
4. It is evident that the apostle Paul is still alive. He was martyred around AD 65.
5. It is evident that the apostle James is still alive. Josephus recorded James’ death at AD 62.

With that being said, Acts was written by a contemporary of Jesus, who died in AD 33. That’s only 29 years of separation. Historically speaking, that is reliable and authentic.

Virtually all scholars acknowledge that 1Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul around AD 55, which is only 22 years after the death of Christ. It is a very early document and was written by an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (see: Acts 9:3-8; the book of Acts is reliable because Luke is reliable). Also, this book refers to more than 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ (1Corinthians 15:6), stressing that most of the witnesses were still alive when he wrote that letter. With that being the case, 1Corinthians was subject to correction by living eyewitnesses. External evidence also verifies 1Corinthians as an authentic and reliable book. Clement of Rome refers to it in his own Epistle to the Corinthians. Further, there are nearly 600 quotations of 1Corinthians in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian alone. It is one of the best attested books of any kind from the ancient world.

If Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul, it brings us right to the apostolic circle, those who participated in the events reported. If the book of Acts is considered to be authentic and reliable, it follows that the book of Luke must also be considered reliable. If the book of Luke is considered to be reliable, it follows that the books of Matthew and Mark should also be considered reliable because Luke, Matthew, and Mark all compliment each other and discuss many of the same crucial points thereby confirming each other. In addition, the authorship of Mark and Matthew was affirmed by Papias in AD 125. Then Irenaeus confirmed this is AD 180. There is no evidence from the first century that the authorship of the Gospels was ever in doubt. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts are considered to be reliable, it eventually follows that all other books in the New Testament are reliable because they all compliment each other and are in alignment with the same message. Further, the New Testament compliments and even mirrors the Old Testament; likewise, the Old Testament inevitably confirms the New Testament.

Noted legal experts have also confirmed the Gospels. Simon Greenleaf was professor of law at Harvard University. In 1853, he authored the book on legal evidence titled A Treatise on the Law of Evidences. When challenged to apply his skills to the New Testament, he wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists, in which he concluded that if in a court of law, “the result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.” Other attorneys, such as Thomas Sherlock, Frank Morrison, and John Montgomery also arrived to the same conclusion that the New Testament is authentic and reliable.

C. S. Lewis had once denied Christianity and then became a believer. He once wrote regarding the authenticity of the New Testament: “All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic.”

And finally, non-Christian sources, most from the first and second century, support the basic facts of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Since none of them were Christian, their testimony is strengthened by virtue of being “adversarial” witnesses. Why would non-Christians verify a lie? Consider the following sources:

• Thallus (AD 52)
• Pheleon (AD 80 ?)
• Josephus (AD 90-95)
• Pliny and Trajan (AD 112)
• Tacitus (AD 115)
• Suetonius (AD 117-138)
• The Jewish Talmud (AD 70-200)
• Lucian (second century)
• Mara Bar-Serapion (first to third century)

Summary:

Archaeology has established the historicity of the people and events described in the Bible, yielding over 25,000 finds that either directly or indirectly relate to Scripture. Amazingly, even if all the manuscripts were destroyed, we could reconstruct the entire New Testament (except for 11 verses) through the Bible quotes made by the early church fathers. Moreover, the historical existence of some 30 individuals named in the New Testament and nearly 60 in the Old Testament have been confirmed through archaeological and historical research. The information we now possess clearly indicates that the Bible is historically reliable and accurate and is not the product of myth, superstition, or embellishment.

Modern editions of ancient books are often based on just a few existing copies yet they are accepted to be true historical accounts. There are over 5,000 partial or whole Greek New Testament manuscripts; however, if other languages are included, the number jumps beyond 25,000! Existing copies of the New Testament are remarkably close to the date of original composition. Most ancient works have a gap of more than 700 years. There are some works, however, such as those by Plato and Aristotle that have over a 1,000-year gap. Even the evidence for Alexander the Great isn’t that great. Unlike Jesus, there are no contemporary sources for Alexander the Great. And even 100 years later there exists only fragments. It is not until 300-500 years later that histories of Alexander appeared. Not only does the New Testament have more, earlier, and better manuscripts, but it also has earlier and more authors who wrote about Jesus. From the standpoint of ancient history, the New Testament documents are reliable, accurate, and incomparable. And since the evidence for other books from antiquity is much less, to reject the great evidence for the basic New Testament is to reject the reliability of all ancient history. And how can the truth of broken pots and Holy scrolls be denied when all of ancient history has been accepted on the same standards from which the Bible has met and exceeded?

In a defense of the reliability and accuracy of their book, the authors of A Brief History of Ancient Greece wrote, “Our literary sources are a diverse group, written in many different genres, or categories of composition defined by form and content.”

If that qualifies their findings to be accepted as reliable and accurate, what would that mean for the Bible? After all, the Bible’s 66 books were written over a span of 1,500 years by 40 different authors who lived on three different continents and wrote in three different languages. Yet this diverse collection has a unified storyline and no contradictions within the cross-crossing quotations that make up a web of wonder. And as we have already learned, non-Christian sources affirm the Bible’s content.

Is the Bible reliable and accurate? Yes. And if you want to know the Potter and the Shepherd, then you need only to read the Author’s written Word: The Bible.

[Extra curriculum reading: The Potter, the Shepherd, the Branch, and It is written (see below)]

• The Potter •

Isaiah 29:16; 64:8;
Jeremiah 18:6;
Lamentations 4:2;
Zechariah 11:13;
Romans 9:20-21

• The Shepherd •

Psalm 23; 78:52,70-72
Isaiah 40:11
Jeremiah 23:2-3; 31:10
Ezekiel 34:11-16,22-24; 37:24
Micah 2:12; 5:4
Zechariah 9:16
Matthew 2:6; 9:36; 25:32; 26:31
Mark 6:34; 14:27
Luke 12:32; 15:4-7
John 10:7-18
Hebrews 13:20
1Peter 2:25
Revelation 7:17

• The Branch •

Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; 53:2
Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15
Ezekiel 17:23
Zechariah 3:8; 6:12

• It Is Written •

Joshua 8:31
2Samuel 1:18
1Kings 2:3
2Kings 23:21
2Chronicles 23:18; 31:3; 35:12
Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18
Nehemiah 8:15; 10:34,36
Psalm 40:7
Isaiah 65:6
Daniel 9:13
Matthew 2:5; 4:4,6-7,10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:24,31
Mark 1:2; 7:6; 9:13; 11:17; 14:21,27
Luke 2:23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,17; 7:27; 19:46; 22:37; 24:46
John 6:31,45; 8:17; 12:14
Acts 1:20; 7:42; 13:33; 15:15; 23:5
Romans 1:17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,9,21
1Corinthians 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7; 14:21; 15:45
2Corinthians 8:15; 9:9
Galatians 3:10,13; 4:22,27
Hebrews 10:7
1Peter 1:16
Revelation 1:3; 17:8; 21:27