(This is an article which appeared in http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/is-bible-reliable.html - Editor)
Greek Manuscript of 1st Corinthians 13
The Bible is actually a
collection of 66 different books written by over 30 different authors in three
continents in three languages over a period of 1,500 years which has been
carefully complied from reliable copies of the original manuscripts (hand-written
documents).
Christians
believe that the Bible is both divinely inspired and an accurate record of
God’s dealings with man. But many people today question its accuracy. This
questioning usually boils down to one of four main questions as follows:
1.Did the events described
really happen in the way the eyewitnesses claimed they did?
(Are there errors of fact?)
If the
eyewitnesses did not relate the events as they originally occurred, then there
are only two possibilities. Either they were mistaken or they deliberately lied.
Individuals
may suffer from errors of perception but not whole groups. Unlike the
'revelations' of contemporary cult leaders many of the events described in the
Bible were witnessed by more than one person. On examining the accounts we find
a remarkable degree of consistency. Consider for example the parallel histories
in Kings, Chronicles and the Prophets, the biography of Jesus in the four
Gospels or the 500 who were said to have seen Christ after the resurrection. (1
Cor 15:6)
On the
other hand would the authors deliberately lie? According to historical
tradition, eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus met a violent death on
account of their belief in his resurrection. Would they really have put
themselves through such suffering for a faith they knew was false? (1 Cor
15:15-19; 2 Cor 11:23-29)
2.Did the story change before
it was written down?
(Are there errors of verbal transmission?)
Many
people in our 21st century world of internet, email and word-processing believe
that verbally transmitted information could never remain uncontaminated. But an
examination of the way stories are passed on in contemporary non-literate
societies quickly puts paid to this kind of cultural arrogance. Oral traditions
are composed in easily memorable format and are constantly repeated and
checked. Some early Muslim converts have memorised over 6,000 verses of the
Qu'ran accurately! The capacity of the human memory is astounding as any mother
who has read to her children knows.
Despite
this, there was no chain of verbal transmission before much of the Bible was
committed to writing. The words and deeds of Jesus were clearly recorded by
eyewitnesses (2 Pet 1:16; 1 Jn 1:3, 19:35) or at least by those who carefully
interviewed them (Lk 1:1-3). The meticulous detail in some of the observations
proves their authenticity (Jn 19:34-5; 20:6-7).
3.Is what we have now what was
originally written down?
(Are there errors of written transmission?)
Scribes
who copied Scripture were meticulous in their attention to detail. One has only
to look at old manuscripts like the Book of Kells in the Dublin Trinity College library, or some of the scrolls in the
British Museum to see the truth of this. Even if we doubted this fact there are
enough early copies of both Old and New Testament documents to show that they
have not been changed over the course of time. Entire copies of the New
Testament in Greek dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus
and Alexandrinus) can be viewed today. Some of the earliest fragments (eg John
Ryland) date from the lifetime of those who knew the apostles personally. Until
last century the earliest Old Testament in Hebrew which we possessed was the
Massoretic Text (cAD900). However, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran in
the 1940s, (which contain parts of every Old Testament book save one) are 1,000
years older and virtually identical.
When
comparisons are made with other documents of antiquity the Bible documents
stand alone in terms of authenticating evidence. We know about Julius Caesar
(whose existence no-one doubts) from less than a dozen copies of the original
documents, the earliest of which post-date his death by 1,000 years. By
contrast there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts alone of New Testament records
of the life of Christ and his apostles surviving from the first few hundred
years after he walked the streets of Palestine (For more detail on this see here and here)
Apart
from the New Testament documents, early Jewish and Roman literature also makes
mention of Christ: his teaching, miracles, crucifixion under Tiberius and even
the three hours darkness at the time of his death. (see Tacitus, Lucian,
Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Thallus).
Archeological
discoveries have repeatedly confirmed that those who wrote the Bible were
consummate historians of the first order. (eg Ezra 6:13-16; Lk 3:1-2)
4.Are there contradictions?
Those
who make reference to the 'thousands' of contradictions in the Bible are
usually unable to name one. Most genuine contradictions can be attributed to
minor errors in hand copying of individual letters or numbers (eg 2 Ch 36:9 cf
2 Ki 24:8) or to verses being taken out of context (eg Mt 7:8 cf Pr 1:28).
Others arise when the same story is told from the perspective of different
observers (eg Lk 24:1-2 cf Jn 20:1) This is what we would expect. If serial
witnesses in court give identical testimonies, one might suspect that the
evidence has been fabricated.
Some
contradictions may seem at first difficult to account for, but can be explained
satisfactorily (eg Judas's mode of death Mt 27:5 cf Acts1:18 and Jesus's
genealogy Mt 1:6-16 cf Lk 3:23-31.) Apparent contradictions confirm rather than
cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity. They would be carefully edited out in a
fake. The fact remains that there is not a single error in the Bible which
casts doubt on any significant historical biblical event or doctrine. Whilst
accepting that there will always be mysteries, there are reasonable
explanations for virtually all the so-called contradictions (See 101 cleared up
contradictions)
Throughout
the last two thousand years the Bible has withstood vociferous criticism with
flying colours.
In my
experience those who are most vocal in questioning it reject it, not because of
the above reasons (these are just smokescreens!) but for one of five reasons:
1.Hearsay. They have never looked at it but have
heard that others reject it.
2.Presuppositions. They believe that miracles cannot
happen and because the Bible describes miracles it must therefore be false.
3.Science. They think the Bible makes claims
which have been disproved scientifically.
4.Morality. They reject the Bible’s moral
teaching especially about sexuality.
5.Personal. They are unwilling to accept the
personal implications of the Bible’s teaching.
Peter Saunders
No comments:
Post a Comment