Can We Trust The Bible?

Recently, I posted a talk that I gave on the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus through the Truthful Hope Podcast. The comment section was immediately flooded with atheists voicing their contrary opinions. While some of the comments were expected, a common theme among many of them did catch me by surprise. One comment sums up the theme perfectly: “You can’t use the Bible as evidence; we don’t believe in the Bible!”

You might be thinking, “I’m surprised, non-Christians don’t believe in the Bible. Really?” In a certain sense, yes! It is evident that non-Christians do not believe everything in the Bible (such as miracles and the resurrection of Jesus)—they, of course, are non-Christians, after all. However, one does not need to believe everything in the Bible to accept its historicity. In other words, one does not have to throw the baby out with the bath water!

This is precisely how secular (non-Christian) historians and scholars treat the Bible! To reject the Bible as historical evidence simply because one does not “believe in” it would be to discard the most reliable historical sources we have of the ancient world, as will be demonstrated below.  As a Christian apologist, I am not attempting to convince skeptics that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, for why would they accept that as accurate if they don’t even think the Bible is historically reliable?

Instead, my goal is to demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable historical source and present the evidence that supports this claim. Having established the Bible as a library of historical documents, it is entirely within one’s right to use the Bible as historical evidence for the life and teachings of Jesus, which include His resurrection.

What is the Bible?

Before showing why the Bible is the best-supported historical document we have today, it is first critical to establish what the Bible is and what it is not. The Bible is not a single book written by a single author hundreds of years after the life of Jesus. Instead, the Bible is a library of historical documents of various genres written over a period of approximately 1,500 years by around 40 authors on various continents, all supporting the same narrative—communicating God’s message of salvation through Christ.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), in particular, are written in the form of ancient biographies that contain the life and teachings of Jesus. This is important. Some books of the Bible are written in the form of poetry, such as Psalms, while others are apocalyptic, like Revelation. Just as we view Marvel movies differently than we do with documentaries on the Holocaust, so should we treat the Gospel accounts distinct from how we read the Psalms? For instance, while some myths begin with phrases like “Once upon a time” or “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…,” the Gospels sound quite different. Here's how physician and historian Luke started his Gospel:

“Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. So it also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed” – Luke 1:1-4 CSB

Luke, therefore, begins his gospel in a way that sounds historical, not mythical. The rest of the New Testament has a similar trend. One example is found in 2 Peter:

“For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2 Peter 1:16 CSB

Not only do the New Testament documents sound like written history and the authors affirm its historicity, but they also have the feel of written history. For instance, the authors accurately record cultural norms, weather descriptions, locations, leaders, and even names, all dating back to the first century. Moreover, they contain embarrassing details about themselves. In the Gospels, the apostles appear as petty, scared, of little faith, disobedient, and much more. Why include embarrassing details if they were merely fictitious? All of this contributes to why atheist historian and biblical scholar Bart Ehrman said the following,

“The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not simply the view of Christian historians…it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity of every kind, from committed evangelical Christians to hardcore atheists.”[1]

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus, while Mark was recounting the eyewitness testimony of the apostle Peter, and Luke, as shown above, carefully collected testimony from various eyewitnesses and other reliable sources. You may have noticed that Ehrman claimed the Gospels are the “oldest and best” sources that we have. Is this true? This is precisely what we will demonstrate next.

What is the historical evidence for the New Testament?

We do not have the original copies of the Gospels. This may come as a shock to some Christians and may lead the skeptic to smirk at this line, thinking to themselves, “I told you so! See, unreliable!” Not so fast; we don’t have the original copies of any historical documents from the ancient world, yet we are confident in numerous ancient historical figures, such as Plato, Caesar, and Alexander the Great.

 The task of historians and related scholars is to reconstruct the original documents using a method called textual criticism. This entails using the available copies (also known as manuscripts) and comparing them with one another, among other tactics. Two important questions are presented for establishing the reliability of the reconstructed originals: how many manuscripts exist, and how close are they to the original documents? The question, then, is how the Gospels compare with other non-Christian historical documents from the ancient world in this regard.

The more copies we have, the better! More copies make it much easier to reconstruct the originals reliably. As shown in Fig. 1A below, we have approximately 5,800 copies of the New Testament in the original Greek language, in which it was written, far more than the best-supported non-Christian ancient documents.

Fig. 1A

As influential biblical scholar F. F. Bruce said:

“There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”[2]

How close are the New Testament copies to the original, and how does their timeline compare with other non-Christian historical documents? It is first important to consider that the average gap of time we have discovered for non-Christian ancient documents from their originals is about 500 years.

As shown in Fig. 1B below, portions of manuscripts from the Gospels can be dated within 100 years of their original composition. We have complete copies of the New Testament, dating from around 300-350 AD (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) and around 400-440 AD (Codex Alexandrinus).  The earliest undisputed manuscript we have is a segment of the Gospel of John (18:31-33, 37-38), known as P52, which is dated between 117 and 138 AD; however, some scholars argue that it may be even earlier.

Having been found in Egypt across the Mediterranean from its likely place of composition in Asia Minor, it is reasonable to believe that John’s Gospel had already spread quite some distance by the early second century. The gap between the earliest manuscripts we have to the date of the originals for the New Testament is much closer compared to the following best secular historical document, Homer, which has been dated 400-500 years after the original.

Fig. 1B

It is clear that the New Testament surpasses non-Christian ancient documents in terms of the number of manuscripts and their proximity to the originals. With over 2,600,000 pages of the Greek New Testament, 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 36,000 patristic quotations, and 23,000 total New Testament manuscripts (in numerous languages), it is no wonder that scholars take the historicity of the Bible seriously, whether they are Christian or not. As Dr. Daniel Wallace said:

“It just doesn’t matter how you look at this. The New Testament, far and away, is the best attested ancient document from the Greco-Roman world.”[3]

The question then becomes: if we can confidently trust the ancient historical sources for Alexander the Great, Plato, Caesar, and others, then why can we not trust the New Testament even more, given the significantly greater historical support it has in comparison? As Wallace said,

“If we have doubts about what the autographic New Testament said, those doubts would have to be multiplied a hundredfold for the average classic author.” [4]

With this being said, however, objections still abound. For instance, “The Bible was written hundreds of years after the events themselves, legend surely crept in!”, “We can’t trust the Bible after how many times it’s been translated and passed down, it’s been changed so many times!”, and “The Bible was written by men who are prone to error and were biased, so it can’t be trusted!” These objections are worth briefly addressing before concluding this article.

Objection 1: “The Bible was written hundreds of years after the events, so legend clearly crept in!”

Other comments on some of my posts about the resurrection include skeptics claiming that the Gospels were definitely written hundreds of years after the time of Jesus, not written within the first century. Is this true? The evidence says otherwise.

While space does not permit an in-depth review of the dating of the Gospels, it can be reasonably stated that the original New Testament documents were all written before 100 AD, within the first century. First and foremost, we have letters written between AD 95 and 110 by three early church fathers (Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp) that contain quotations from 25 out of 27 books in the New Testament.

The figures below show each of the books quoted by the three respective early church fathers (Fig. 2A) and the frequency per book quoted of even more Church fathers (Fig. 2B). Since Clement was in Rome and Ignatius and Polycarp were hundreds of miles away in Smyrna, the original New Testament documents had to have been written much earlier. Otherwise, how could they have circulated across the ancient world by that time?

Fig. 2A-B

Such quotations from the early church fathers, also known as patriarchal quotations, are incredibly important. As Bruce Metzger and Ehrman said,

“Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by the early Church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.”[5]

Therefore, the latest the New Testament books could have been written would be by 100 AD, not later. Scholars debate how early they could have been written. However, we have incredible evidence within the New Testament itself that suggests at least parts date back to within a couple of years, or even a few months, of the resurrection. I am specifically referencing the early creed found in 1 Corinthians, written by Paul:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV

Even critical scholars date this creed back to within a couple of years of the resurrection, as atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann said,

“The elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years.”[6] 

Therefore, we can be confident that the New Testament was written at least within the first century.

Objection 2: We can’t trust the Bible after considering how many times it has been translated and passed down; it has been changed so many times.

Newsweek journalist Kurt Eichenwald said this about the Bible,

“No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation – a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies and so on, a hundred times.”[7] 

Many like Eichenwald mistakenly think the Bible has been passed down through the centuries like the game children often play, the Telephone Game. It goes something like this: one kid whispers a sentence to his neighbor, who whispers what he thought he heard to the next person, and down the line, through many people, the saying goes. The last person tells the group what was whispered to him, and it is completely different than what was initially whispered. However, this is not how ancient documents are passed down!

A better illustration is as follows. Suppose you’re in Mrs. Thompson’s third-grade class of 40 students, and she writes a lengthy paragraph on the board, instructing the students to carefully copy it word for word onto a piece of paper. She tells them their grade will depend on how accurately they copy. When they're done, Mrs. Thompson erases the paragraph from the board, so what happens to the original? Gone! Then she tells the students to exchange copies with one another to make additional copies of those. When they're finished, she tells them to tear up their first copies, exchange their second copies, and so on.

So, do they have the original? Nope. All they have are copies of copies of copies. However, do you think the third graders can reconstruct the original paragraph even though it’s long gone? Absolutely! They can compare the various copies made to reconstruct the original. Will there be differences among the copies? Yes, but there will be minor differences, such as spelling and punctuation, compared to the main message. Even if one kid completely messes up, the rest of the third graders will be able to spot the mistakes he made by comparing them to the other copies. This is how ancient documents are passed down, carefully and in abundance.

Objection 3: “The Bible was written by men who are prone to error and were biased, so it can’t be trusted!”

While it is true that people make errors, it is not true that people always make errors. If that were so, we wouldn’t be able to trust anybody ever, for any reason! But surely, we have no problem trusting the food made and delivered to us (despite not knowing anything about the cooks or drivers involved), the people driving beside us at high speeds, and so on.

Our skepticism seems to disappear as we engage in day-to-day tasks that involve significant trust in others to get things right, even when our lives are at stake (i.e., what we ingest and being in a car at high speeds surely puts our lives in danger). For a deeper dive into this, however, I recommend the reader check out an article we released previously on this very topic HERE.

Nevertheless, one example may suffice. We have no problems trusting the information printed on medication bottles without thoroughly investigating the ingredients and studies conducted for each pill we take. Why? Not because we think the humans involved in the process of creating the medication and instructing on how to take it are always right. Rather, because we understand that they are flawed humans like everyone else, it is possible that they can get things right. The same is true of the authors of the New Testament.

However, this brings up another question. The skeptic can respond by saying, “Okay, but the scientists making the medication are objective and have no personal interest; the authors of the Bible were biased!” While I will save the deep dive into how scientists indeed have personal interests in medications (an article for a very different day), this is a fair objection: can we trust the New Testament, even though Christians wrote it? Yes!

Bias is no reason to reject the claims by the New Testament authors. An innocent man accused of a crime may have a deep interest in proving his innocence, but this bias is not a reason to dismiss the evidence he produces. Similarly, should we dismiss the testimony of Holocaust survivors who recorded their dreadful experience? Of course not! While bias can cause one to doubt a person’s testimony or claim, it can also serve as a motivator for accurately recording the events.

Conclusion

With all of this being said, the Bible should not be rejected solely because it is considered a religious text today and contains details that do not fit with a naturalistic worldview (i.e., miracles). Instead, the Bible should be taken seriously as a historical document. As scholar John Warwick Montgomery said,

“To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[8] 

Thus, my response to the many comments asserting "the Bible can't be used as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus" is that they are terribly mistaken. The historical documents contained in the Bible comprise the best-supported sources from ancient times. One is free to reject the claims of the Bible (i.e., miracles), but to assert one cannot use it as evidence for investigating historical claims it makes is baseless (not even non-Christian scholars take this position).

The Christian need not play along with such a demand from the skeptic; rather, the burden of proof lies with the skeptic to demonstrate the unreliability of the Bible. However, as we have seen above, this is a heavy burden in light of all the supporting evidence for the historicity of the Bible.

Footnotes

[1] Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 102.

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), 178.

[3] “Is the Original New Testament Lost? A Dialogue with Dr. Bart Ehrman & Dr. Daniel Wallace,” YouTube, 2012. https://youtu.be/kg-dJA3SnTA?si=TKpPpcgnrKqnuWbI.

[4] Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publishing, 2011), 28.

[5] Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th Ed. (Oxford University Press, 2005), 126.

[6] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 171-72.

[7] Kurt Eichenwald, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” NewsWeek Magazine, December 23, 2014, https://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html.

[8] John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), 29.