Putting Christianity to the Test: Part 1.1 - The Bible
April 8, 2008 – 5:30 am
I guess I should have started with some background before jumping right into the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
One of the most common questions about Christianity is the validity of the Bible. Usually the question or statement goes something like this: “The Bible was written by humans, how can it be reliable,” or “the Bible has been copied and translated so many times, how can it be accurate.” These are great questions which basically assert that the bible is not reliable, to which I would whole heartedly disagree. My brief answer will barely touch on the subject and hardly do it justice, but for the sake of keeping this blog at least somewhat entertaining I’m going to keep it short (unless more questions come up regarding this topic).
According to Josh McDowell, Charles Leach, Bruce Metzger (and many more) there are more than 24,000 New Testament manuscripts in existence. The next best is Homer’s Illiad, which has 643 manuscripts. That’s not even close!
Here’s something else to think about. Some of the most respected classic literature written by authors such as Plato, Sophocles and Aristotle had more than 1,000 years between the original and the first copies. The New Testament on the other hand, had a mere 300 years before being copied.
Maybe this is a bad example, but ask yourself honestly, what would you trust more:
- 240 people telling you the same thing about an event that occurred 3 minutes ago
- 6 people telling you the same thing about an event that occurred more than 10 minutes ago
Last point for now. Since we’ve established the Illiad as the closest comparison to the Bible we’ll continue to use it. Both the Illiad and the Bible have gone through revisions. The New Testament has about 20,000 lines and the Illiad has about 15,600. Only 40 lines of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Illiad are in question. Doh!
The conclusion is clear, if you can’t trust the Bible you can’t trust anything. If you want to accept the works of the classic authors you’ll also have to accept the work of the Bible. Otherwise you’re going to have to throw them all out. There really isn’t any middle ground.
Photograph by Muffet
7 Responses to “Putting Christianity to the Test: Part 1.1 - The Bible”
I am perfectly willing to trust the Bible to the same extent I trust the Iliad, but I don’t particulary trust the Iliad as anything other than an ancient work of fiction that provides some insight into the beliefs and culture of the Greeks at the time it was written.
By Vinny on Apr 8, 2008
Hey Vinny thanks for the comment! I simply used the Illiad as an example because aside from the Bible it is the best preserved document out there.
It’s highly likely, however, that some of your beliefs are in part influenced by great philosophers such as Plato, Sophocles and Aristotle (as I mentioned) who’s works are less historically accurate than the Bible or the Illiad.
So you’re still not off the hook on that one, unless you believe that the Bible is purely fictional, in which case you’d have to ignore huge chunks of history, fulfilled prophecies, and third party texts. If you’re willing to do that you’re going to have a lot of work to do reconciling all your values and beliefs.
By Dustin Boston on Apr 8, 2008
It is possible that I have been influenced by ancient philosophers; however, it really doesn’t matter to me whether something attributed to Socrates was actually said by him, or whether it was attributed to him by Plato, or whether some later scribe inserted it into the text. The idea can be just as compelling even if I cannot trace it all the way back to its originator.
By Vinny on Apr 8, 2008
@Vinny: Although thought provoking and certainly worth discussion, your last comment is irrelevant to the current topic. We’re just trying to determine if the Bible is reliable, not whether ideas are compelling. Perhaps we will venture into that area at a later date.
By Dustin Boston on Apr 8, 2008
Hey man! Cool topic. I know I’ve been telling you I would respond for a while now. Sorry for the delay. My response is really more of a critique of your argument than it is a response to the validity of the Bible, but this is my initial thoughts on what you’ve said.
First, I think this follow-up to your first post is very important. It’s important to establish the claim of authority for your original pillars of Christianity. In this case, you site the Bible as the source and foundation to your argument.
It’s important also to establish the validity of your foundation to support your initial claims. However, I think you missed the mark here. I’ve read through your post several times and the core of your argument for the validity for the Bible is that you disagree with the people who say it’s not valid.
Restated, I read your argument as something like: “Some people say that the Bible is invalid; I think they’re wrong.” This isn’t a bad place to stand, but I would argue that the evidence you site (such as the shear volume of New Testament manuscripts) works more in favor for the idea that the Bible is the work of men than it proves its validity.
Stating that the New Testament has more than 24,000 existing manuscripts could suggest that those reading/translating/interpreting what they read disagreed and decided to make their own version. Additionally, the comparison with Illiad helps your point. Wouldn’t something with fewer manuscripts suggest more agreement with the text?
That being said, I think I understand what argument you are trying to address and I don’t disagree with you on the validity of the Bible. However, the evidence that you’ve presented doesn’t support your argument.
You would have been better off expanding on the “huge chunks of history, fulfilled prophecies, and third party texts” you alluded to in response to Vinny.
Speaking of Vinny, his last response is, in fact, relevant to the issue in the sense that, to him, your argument isn’t compelling or relevant in considering the validity of the Bible.
By chris runoff on Apr 17, 2008
I think what you want to establish is the the bible is the infallible word of God. What you have claimed is that the Bible is a)old and b)copied many many times. What isn’t established by your discussion is whether or not it is the truth.
I will be eager to hear more about that.
Personally, I find the bible to be exactly what it needs to be. But I also think that there are elements that are either open to interpretation, or possibly interpreted incorrectly long ago.
By boxseven on Apr 17, 2008
Carp! I just spent 40 minutes carefully crafting my response to you and then I accidentally closed the page. Suckbutt!
Here’s the gist of what I had written.
It’s not really my intention to disprove anyone so much as it is prove the reliability of the Bible.
@chris runoff - you omitted my arguments regarding the accuracy of the texts. Only .5% of New Testament manuscripts were ever in doubt about opposed to the Illiad’s 5% in question.
@chris runoff and @boxseven You’re both right. I’ve only proved 1 of 3 criteria for proving the historical reliability of a document. Here are the criteria:
1. Bibliographical evidence (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
2. Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
3. External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
See Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? and The Historical Reliability of the Old Testament for more information on these origins of these criteria. I think that they’re fair.
I should probably follow up with another post that goes on to address the other 2 points. We’ll see I guess.
It may not be compelling to him, but it is no less logical because of that. I think that C. Sanders points above should suffice for what consists of compelling evidence in regards to the historical reliability of a document.
Jeeze I really need to install a comment preview feature on this blog. I’ve edited my comment like 5 times now. Sorry if you’re subscribed to the comment feed
By Dustin Boston on Apr 17, 2008