What if the Bible was Perfectly Copied for the last 2000 Years?
I was downtown last week with a friend when we were confronted by a student from the local Bible College. In the midst of the conversation the supposed reliability of the New Testament manuscripts came up.
Being a Bible college graduate myself, I've read a number of books on how we can trust what our Bibles say. All the books have essentially the same answer:
We can trust what the New Testament says is true because:
1. There are MORE New Testament manuscripts than any other document from the ancient world (around 5,500 near complete manuscripts which is a lot compared to other ancient documents).
2. There are EARLIER New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient document (scholars range them between 25 and 200 years of when the events they record supposedly happened).
3. There are BETTER New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient document (in other words, scholars are fairly certain that much of what is in modern New Testaments is what was originally written in the first century).
Being a Bible college graduate myself, I've read a number of books on how we can trust what our Bibles say. All the books have essentially the same answer:
We can trust what the New Testament says is true because:
1. There are MORE New Testament manuscripts than any other document from the ancient world (around 5,500 near complete manuscripts which is a lot compared to other ancient documents).
2. There are EARLIER New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient document (scholars range them between 25 and 200 years of when the events they record supposedly happened).
3. There are BETTER New Testament manuscripts than any other ancient document (in other words, scholars are fairly certain that much of what is in modern New Testaments is what was originally written in the first century).
Christian apologists, such as Dr. Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, and Dr.WIlliam Lane Craig, have used the above three points to persuade people to believe what the Bible says. I used to believe that because the Bible was meticulously copied for centuries, that that was good reason to believe it.
Without going into the fine detail that the above arguments deserve, let's just assume all three of those statements are true. What does that really prove? Does it prove we should trust that what the Bible says is the Gospel truth? (no pun intended here).I used to believe that.
For #1, it shows we've got a lot of manuscripts. But what if it's a lie? Then we have a lot of copies of a lie. In other words, the number of copies of the Bible we have has little to nothing to do with whether I should trust that what it says is true.
For #2, it shows people wrote those things down as early as 30 years after the events happened. It's assumed that since someone wrote it down within three decades of the event, it had to be accurate. But why? People can make things up 2 seconds after an event as easy as 100 years afterwards. It was even easier back then in a world without mass media or other modern tools that would limit one's ability to make up stories. Bill Curry, a contributor here at DC, has written an excellent evaluation on
how legends can in fact arise within the lifetime of an eyewitness.
As far as #3 goes, it shows that what it says today is fairly close to what it said back then. But historians are also fairly confident that the stories we have about Caesar being a god are what was originally written by the author, but no one seriously considers that to be evidence that he really was a god.
Now, I understand those three points are often used to make a cumulative case, but in this case, three bad arguments put together don't make good evidence for anything. I also understand that Christians use other areas of evidence to show why it's "trustworthy" (such as archaeology), but I'm talking about the three claims above that are routinely used by Christians.
There's absolutely no reason why the above three claims, even if they're true, should cause someone to believe that Jesus got people drunk at a wedding instead of just hydrated, or that graves opened up and dead people started preaching the word, or that all of a sudden a room of people could speak perfectly in another language.
So what if the Bible was copied perfectly for the last 2000 years? Would it follow then that we can trust what it says is what really happened? I don't think so.
The bottom line is that these apologists and evangelists are confusing the reliability of the TEXT with the reliability of the MESSAGE. That, I think is a crucial distinction that needs to be made.
Whether the manuscripts are early, late, a lot, a few, xeroxed, or hand copied by a second grader, is not the point. The point is to show that the stuff really happened in history -- and I'm afraid you just can't do that with the New Testament or any other ancient document with the above three claims.
Without going into the fine detail that the above arguments deserve, let's just assume all three of those statements are true. What does that really prove? Does it prove we should trust that what the Bible says is the Gospel truth? (no pun intended here).I used to believe that.
For #1, it shows we've got a lot of manuscripts. But what if it's a lie? Then we have a lot of copies of a lie. In other words, the number of copies of the Bible we have has little to nothing to do with whether I should trust that what it says is true.
For #2, it shows people wrote those things down as early as 30 years after the events happened. It's assumed that since someone wrote it down within three decades of the event, it had to be accurate. But why? People can make things up 2 seconds after an event as easy as 100 years afterwards. It was even easier back then in a world without mass media or other modern tools that would limit one's ability to make up stories. Bill Curry, a contributor here at DC, has written an excellent evaluation on
how legends can in fact arise within the lifetime of an eyewitness.
As far as #3 goes, it shows that what it says today is fairly close to what it said back then. But historians are also fairly confident that the stories we have about Caesar being a god are what was originally written by the author, but no one seriously considers that to be evidence that he really was a god.
Now, I understand those three points are often used to make a cumulative case, but in this case, three bad arguments put together don't make good evidence for anything. I also understand that Christians use other areas of evidence to show why it's "trustworthy" (such as archaeology), but I'm talking about the three claims above that are routinely used by Christians.
There's absolutely no reason why the above three claims, even if they're true, should cause someone to believe that Jesus got people drunk at a wedding instead of just hydrated, or that graves opened up and dead people started preaching the word, or that all of a sudden a room of people could speak perfectly in another language.
So what if the Bible was copied perfectly for the last 2000 years? Would it follow then that we can trust what it says is what really happened? I don't think so.
The bottom line is that these apologists and evangelists are confusing the reliability of the TEXT with the reliability of the MESSAGE. That, I think is a crucial distinction that needs to be made.
Whether the manuscripts are early, late, a lot, a few, xeroxed, or hand copied by a second grader, is not the point. The point is to show that the stuff really happened in history -- and I'm afraid you just can't do that with the New Testament or any other ancient document with the above three claims.
15 comments:
I've never seen the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible used as an argument for its truth. Why would anyone make such an argument, given that there's absolutely no necessary relationship between the two propositions?
Are you sure you aren't attacking a strawman?
There is one thing in the Bible that is absolutely compelling evidence and I have no reason to doubt that it is from a being far superior than anyone - "love the enemy" What ulterior motive would any human being have for those words????????
Why, are you made of straw? :-)
Those three points have been used numerous times by Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, and a host of other apologists.
Here's a few links:
"Are the Biblicale Documents Reliable?" by Jimmy Williams of Probe Ministries. He says, "To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament....We have the Word of God."
He seems to confuse "reliability" of the text with "reliability" of the message.
Here's another one at Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (I forgot the link, that's why I deleted the last comment). He also confuses "reliability" of the text with "reliability" of the message.
These are a few internet sources I found. There's a bunch in books as well. Rarely are these arguments used in isolation, as I said in my post, but they're there and made of something other than straw.
The link to Jimmy Williams' article is here:
"Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?"
Regarding the first reason, which I call the Xerox Argument for biblical reliability, that just demonstrates christian diligence in copying their scriptures, not that the scriptures have any deep value.
By contrast, consider that we have only one known copy of some of Archimedes' works found on the Archimedes palimpsest. Despite the single ancient copy, we know we have the real deal because (1) the geometrical arguments have to stand on their own merits; and (2) extremely few people in any era can do mathematics at Archimedes' level, so if Archimedes didn't write the works discernable on the Palimpsest, we have to assume a previously unknown mathematician of the first rank must have written them instead. No ordinary guy could pass himself off as Archimedes, in other words, whereas any reasonably literate person in late antiquity could have written a "gospel." Quality matters more than quantity.
Given the links above, evidently the strawman is not being propounded by atheists, but by Christians. It should come as no surprise that evidential apologetics is rife with such basic errors, though, since evidential apologetics are not biblical, and can prove nothing.
Mark,
I didn't know about Archimedes' works in that instance. That's a great contribution to this post. Much thanks for adding it.
Bnonn,
Thanks for checking out those links. They are kind of basic errors, aren't they? I'm surprised I used to believe those arguments were true. Peace.
Bnonn says "Given the links above, evidently the strawman is not being propounded by atheists, but by Christians. It should come as no surprise that evidential apologetics is rife with such basic errors, though, since evidential apologetics are not biblical, and can prove nothing."
Good for you! The Xerox argument for biblical reliability is definitely used by Josh McDowell, especially in his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It is found in Chapter Four and he cites the bibliographical, external, and internal evidence tests to support the reliability of the Bible before moving into archeology.
That you do not embrace evidentialism but presuppositionalism seems to be a breath of fresh air. Now, let me ask you this- what are you doing to personally reform Christian thinking so that it does not rely on evidentialism?
Matthew
"Regarding the first reason, which I call the Xerox Argument for biblical reliability, that just demonstrates christian diligence in copying their scriptures, not that the scriptures have any deep value.
By contrast, consider that we have only one known copy of some of Archimedes' works found on the Archimedes palimpsest. Despite the single ancient copy, we know we have the real deal because (1) the geometrical arguments have to stand on their own merits; and (2) extremely few people in any era can do mathematics at Archimedes' level, so if Archimedes didn't write the works discernable on the Palimpsest, we have to assume a previously unknown mathematician of the first rank must have written them instead. No ordinary guy could pass himself off as Archimedes, in other words, whereas any reasonably literate person in late antiquity could have written a "gospel." Quality matters more than quantity."
I concur with Zac. This is an excellent point! Let me just add a bit of luster here. Consider also, that the works of Archimedes doesn't have to compete with other works that I know of as being written by the real Archimedes or any followers. By contrast, we have the canonical gospels and many other different gospels, a number of which are known forgeries.
There are many examples of apocryphal gospels, epistles, acts, and revelation books that are not recognized as being authentic. The early Christian Church had to decide on a canon which ultimately resulted in the New Testament that we have today. Funny, but I don't recall any kind of counsel of ancient Greek mathematicians having to decide which works of Archimedes are the true and authentic works and which are forgeries. There is no canon that I know of for Archimedes yet there exists an abundence of rejected material in the forms of gospels, acts, and epistles which claim to have been written by Jesus' disciples.
Matthew
I recommend any of John Dominic Crossan's books dealing with this, such as "The Historical Jesus".
Here a link:
http://www.johndcrossan.com/
A point you haven't raised, but one that is at least as decisive as the three you mention is that these only refer to the canonical books. But there were several dozen separate "gospels" alone, as the "gospel of thomas" and even the "gospel of judas" demonstrate. And these are just those that have been found. What about those deliberately destroyed? The nature of xianity would be utterly different if the gnostic interpretation of xianity had become the dominant one.
And besides all that, even if we could somehow be satisfied that the present canon were the only truly "inspired" books, we would still have the problem of interpreting many strange passages upon which reasonable people differ as to their significance. In some cases, it's an issue of interpreting allegories, but in other cases, it's a more straightforward instance of scholars actually not knowing what a key word means in a given context.
Of course, that's getting ahead of ourselves, because, as Bart Ehrman and others have shown, actually, there are plenty of mistakes, redactions, insertions, etc. There are more variations than the total number of words in the bible.
If God is a perfectly just judge, how will He be able to judge men, if the things He demands of us have not been conveyed to us reliably enough for Him to hold us to account? The Lord speaks to men in many ways. The Spirit of truth leads men into the truth, those of us who belong to the way of truth depend heavily on the Spirit to discern our way through the mountains of error facing us on every side. The truth is there for men to find if they REALLY want it. Half hearted efforts to find truth won't achieve anything in this world, or the kingdom of God. The Lord is looking at the motives and intents of men's hearts, not the words that proceed from their mouths. Different versions of the bible offer men different things, the core message is the same though. John 3:16 says about the same thing in any version you want to pick up. If an all powerful God can't communicate with men as He purposes, then I suppose He's not all powerful. An all powerful God cannot be thwarted, who can trump omnipotence? The arguments proposing that an all powerful God cannot do some things is more a reflection on men's ignorance than on God's abilities or lack thereof. When men are on their knees before Him they can ask Him how He is able to design things to do-that He cannot do. The time to seek the truth is today. Ask the Lord to open your spiritual eyes so you may see things as He sees them, time is short.
~D
You are very sad people, I will pray for you.
Not to join in on the debunking of Christianity, but Henry Ford financed the printing of a outlandish number of the "Secret meetings" of the Learned Elders of Zion. The LEOZ was Proven to have been a hoax. I feel the the meaning behind the new testament is certainly the headier of the meaning VS message source argument.
Bible and all the religious scriptures are man made. They are your ancestors own thoughts and random guesses of nature, dividing it as God and Evil. First few sentences of bible clearly proves that it was Abraham's own thoughts and ideas of God and evil. He thought that god made heaven and earth in seven days. Heaven was full of waters and earth was full of waters. There was no gap between heaven and earth it was full of waters. God created an expanse or dome(sky firmament)(which is distance between sky and earth) and separated waters under the dome(earth) and waters above the dome(sky). Then in above waters(sky) made stars, sun, moon etc.called them heavens or sky and below waters(earth) God made all the waters gathered to one place and called seas. As water gathered land appeared. God made seeds, plants, animals etc etc etc... He filled his huge gap of ignorance with word God. Where ever Abraham saw things he gave names, and where ever he didn't know he used the word God instead of accepting that he doesn't know.
Post a Comment