Why believe the Bible over any other sacred book?
The Quran came from Mohammed. The Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith. But the Bible is unique among the many sacred books in the world. One person did not write it. Rather, the Old and New Testaments were given through 40 different authors, located in Asia, Africa and Europe, over a 1600-year time span. Which makes sense--with a task like God's (communicating to all of humanity), why entrust your message to just one individual in one thin slice of time?
And amazingly, the Bible's writers--even over such a long period of time--all convey the same basic message: the God who created the heavens and the earth wants to know people and has provided a way for people to know Him.
Beyond its unique authorship the Bible also has the number one track record for fulfilled prophecy. Old Testament prophets gave over 300 specific prophecies about the coming Messiah, all of which were perfectly fulfilled by Jesus Christ hundreds of years later. These and the many other fulfilled prophecies show why the writers could say, "Thus says the Lord..."--they were speaking for the One who knows "the end from the beginning."1 More on prophecy.
Also unique to the Bible is its confirmation by archaeology. Archaeological finds have consistently confirmed names, historical events, and geographical details exactly as reported in the Old and New Testaments. Though archaeology cannot prove the spiritual truth of the Bible, the discoveries do show the Bible's reliability as an historical report. More on archaeology.
Also, unlike any other book, the Bible has been remarkably preserved over time. Thousands of accurately hand-copied manuscripts are in existence today. In fact, there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament (compared to only seven existing manuscripts of Plato's writings). And when the text of all these volumes is compared, one finds a 99.95% consistency. More on manuscripts.
Are the Gospels accurate about Jesus?
Historians often determine the reliability of a biography by asking, "Do other numerous sources report the same details?" For example, imagine collecting biographies on former president John F. Kennedy. You come across many biographies on the life of JFK, describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and they report many similar facts. What if then you came across one biography reporting that, just prior to his presidency, JFK devoted ten years of his life living as a priest, in South Africa? None of your other sources mentioned anything about a former career as a priest, or living ten years in South Africa. Obviously, the credibility of this biography is out the window.
Regarding Jesus of Nazareth, are there multiple biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. There are four New Testament books (called Gospels) that give lengthy details of Jesus' life. Two of the books were written by men who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him for over three years (Matthew and John); the other two books were written by close associates of Jesus' apostles.
Each of the four authors recorded very in-depth narratives of Jesus' life, with great similarity in their reports. As you would expect from various writers covering the life of a real person, there is agreement in the particulars, but also uniqueness and variations in the presentations. And each biography is presented without sensationalism or flowery creativity, but in a newspaper style of "this is how it was." The Gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
Also, the content of Jesus' messages and interactions with others is obviously unique to him and well fixed in time. His statements are unlike what was currently taught in Judaism. And his teachings omit topics that the early church probably would have wished that Jesus had addressed. This lends support that the biographers were accurate, not adding to Jesus' words from a later perspective. For a sample of what is presented in one of the Gospels, click here.
Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?
Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world."2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that 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...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
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."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding 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."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.
Has the New Testament 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. Well, if the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are not made from translations, but from original Greek text found in ancient manuscripts.
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 5,000.
2. The words among those copies are in agreement with each other--99.5% agreement.
3. The copies were found very close to their original date of authorship--see link at end of this section.
When one compares the text from one manuscript copy to another, the compatibility 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."7
What about discrepancies? The variations among the manuscripts are "so rare that scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, 'The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book--a form that is 99.5 percent pure.'"8
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting scholar at Cambridge 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."9
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.
Are there contradictions in the New Testament?
Some write off the New Testament, claiming it's riddled with contradictions. However, on the surface, what may appear to be a contradiction is not, if one is willing to investigate it more fully. For example, Pilate had a sign posted on the cross where Jesus hung, above Jesus' head. 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 on these is different, though their messages do not conflict with each other. What about the exact wording? In Greek, in which the Gospels were written, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do in English. So when the authors were writing about Jesus, some could either have been paraphrasing or a using a direct quote, we don't know. That would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
Here is another example of an apparent contradiction. Jesus told his disciples, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1). Yet just a few statements later Jesus tells them, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." So were Jesus' disciples to judge people or not? And what about Jesus' example? In Matthew 23:15, he says: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." That sounds a little judgmental.
How is this all reconciled? When you look at more of the Gospels you find a consistent message that Jesus does not want his followers looking down on others with a superior attitude, being critical of others, accusing others of something that they fail in also. Yet Jesus also wants them to be wise and not give in to false teaching. Jesus (who, being God, has the right to judge) consistently accused the Pharisees of being hypocritical, prideful and self-serving, rather than serving God as they were supposed to do.
This is typical of apparent contradictions in the New Testament. Many are usually resolved by the text itself or understanding the historical background of the day.
Does archaeology show errors in the New Testament?
Archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is God's Word; however, it can substantiate its historical accuracy. In their finds, archaeologists have often 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 even existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with the five porticoes.10
The Bible has a tremendous amount of historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has been found through archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the Bible records.11
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.12
By comparison, 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."13
Archaeology has also refuted many ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, still taught in some colleges today, the JEPD Documentary Hypothesis suggests that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), because writing was non-existent in his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurrabi. 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....The 'Documentary Hypothesis' is still taught, yet its original basis has been eradicated and shown to be false."14
Another major archaeological find confirming an early alphabet is 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.15 The tablets describe culture and life in similar ways to what is recorded in Genesis chapters 12-50.
It is significant to note that archaeology has not torn down every critic's argument against the Bible. Yet, looking at what has been found by archaeology, the historical accuracy of the Bible is securely intact.
How did they decide which books to include in the New Testament?
There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. As previously mentioned, the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were close followers of Jesus. The other authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection).
The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they reported was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children. So, when other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as phonies.
Another example is the Gospel of Thomas (which Mohammed references in the Quran). The Gospel of Thomas was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of him.
For example, throughout the Gospels, Jesus treats women with dignity. He taught women as well as men, spoke against unfair divorce laws, and first appeared to women after his resurrection, entrusting to them the message that he was alive. This respect toward women countered the culture of his day, which typically viewed women as possessions. Yet the Gospel of Thomas attests the following to Jesus: "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life."16 And: "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."17
So, as books were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained historical and geographical errors.18
At some point an official list of New Testament books became necessary: 1) Christians were being martyred and books were being destroyed; 2) in translating the books into Syriac and Old Latin, a listing of authoritative books was important; 3) false books and false teachings were always challenging the church; and 4) God may likely have been moving the church to formulate an official list. In A.D. 367, Athanasius formerly listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list.
Why did it take 30 or 40 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 was spoken to others, primarily Jews, and spread via 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.19
However, when the gospel spread beyond Jews and Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others in Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars date the Gospels as being written 17-32 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 thy 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."20
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."21
Have you ever read anything from the New Testament Gospels? To read a sample from the Gospel of John, click here.
And, 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?
To believe in God requires some objective reasons, or it's a weak, merely hopeful faith that could change as often as a person's experience changes. If life is going well for a person in France, then she could conclude that God is there and he is very good. But how about for the person in India whose lifestyle is not so comfortable? Is God really there? Is God available and useful to that person? How do you know? You see, faith is not the issue, but what supports the faith.
So the question is important. 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, fulfilled prophecy shows divine intervention, there is continuity with Old Testament authors of the Bible, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is superior accuracy in the translations, and it presents a consistent view of God over 1600 years. All of this gives a solid foundation for believing what we read in the New Testament: that Jesus is God, the Son, who came to give us life. Read part of the Gospel of John and test it for yourself. In fact, you might go one step further and ask God to speak to you through it. Gospel of John
