Bible Thumpers

Don’t you just love it when Christians use the bible to back up their claims? I mean, those are almost 2000 year old documents, and who knows how many times they’ve been modified and lost in translation? I used to wonder these same things. Recently I decided to take a closer look into the New Testament: its accuracy and the motivation behind the writer’s decision to document these stories. What I’ve found is quite shocking.

In History and Literature classes we look at many documents of Antiquity, however, we rarely question their authenticity or reliability. In Josh McDowell’s “Evidence for the Historical Jesus”, McDowell suggests that we put the scriptures through 3 tests. The first test is called the Bibliographical Test, where we look at the amount and quality of the earliest manuscripts. By doing this, we can compare it to the copies we have today and see how accurate they remain. In comparison, the History of Thucydides (which was written around 460-400 BC), has only 8 manuscripts that have been dated to about AD 900 (nearly 1300 years after the originals were written). The same is true for most writings of Antiquity, and the Professor of Biblical criticism, F.F. Bruce comments: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.” McDowell adds, “When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast… Over 22 000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 manuscripts and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament. Also the dates of some of the earliest manuscripts are not dated to the late 2^nd century but as early as AD 130 (the John Rylands Papyrus) which is only a generation away from the life of the apostles.

The second test suggested by McDowell, is the Internal Evidence Test, which involves actually looking at what the document says. I found it quite strange that the New Testament authors actually claimed historical legitimacy. Luke 1:1-4 boldly states: “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 seems good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” This sounds like a note I would attach to a research paper. Luke, although not an eyewitness himself, decided to take the project on, and interview all the eyewitnesses of Christ’s life and resurrection. Another instance that is similar occurs in 2 Peter 1:16 : “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty”. Unlike the researcher Luke, Peter and James and John were all eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, ministry, and resurrection. Peter is actually addressing the situation we find ourselves in today: questioning the authenticity of the Gospels. Lastly, In the book of Acts (generally attributed to Luke), we find Peter speaking to a crowd: “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22). F.F. Bruce points out that, “One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things’; but also, ‘As you yourselves know’. Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective”.

Lastly, we must ask ourselves, Why would the disciples both devote their entire lives for the Gospel (good news), and then die brutal deaths for a Lie? Consider Peter: on the day of Christ’s death he denied associated with Jesus and his ministry three times. After the resurrection Peter was out preaching Christ’s resurrection even after being threatened by death. Peter was eventually crucified upside down. What changed Peter’s mind and life so drastically? Did he die for a lie devised by him and a few other men? What would be the motives for creating such an extravagant hoax? The famous French Philosopher, Pascal states: “The allegation that the apostles were impostors is quite absurd. Let us follow the charge to its logical conclusion: let us picture those twelve men, meeting after the death of Jesus Christ, and entering into conspiracy to say that He has risen. That would have constituted an attack upon both the civil and religious authorities. The heart of man is strangely given to fickleness and change; it is swayed by promises, tempted by material things. If any one of those men had yielded to temptations so alluring, or given way to the more compelling arguments of prison [or] torture, they would have all been lost” and I would like to add, the entire Christian Faith would have died on the spot.

In conclusion, not only is the New Testament one of the most reliable documents of Antiquity, the writers also strongly believed in what they wrote. The were so committed to the Gospel that they were willing to die brutal deaths for the cause and preservation of the Good News of Jesus Christ so that you and I can be certain of his purpose here on Earth. Ultimately, “If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all the literature of antiquity” (McDowell).  The Gospels are both intellectually sound documents as well as existentially meaningful: Take a look for yourself. 

-Rachel S.

P.S. If you are curious about the accuracy of the Bible, as well as translation, look into the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will again, be amazed at how accurate the versions are that we read today.