Is the Bible a Reliable Historical Document?

In part 1, we looked at several reasons to trust the bible, perhaps the best being that the people who were inspired by God to write it had nothing to gain and everything to lose for doing so. In part 2, I simply want to compare the textual record of the Bible to other ancient texts which are considered to be the most reliable.

Superior Textual Record

So the Bible is authored by trustworthy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and infallible in its teaching. What more needs to be said about the Bible? Why all this talk about inerrancy? In other words, why is it important to believe that the original biblical manuscripts were written exactly as God intended? Because if any part of the revelation was misunderstood or inaccurately recorded, then we are on our own to determine how God really wants us to live and believe. But even if we do believe that the original writings of the biblical authors were inerrant, what difference does it make if all we have now are copies? This is where I would like to spend some time demonstrating to you that your copy of the Bible is as accurate as the original. 

In the mid-1800s, German scholars began to assert that the most important books of the New Testament were written after A.D. 130. Their conclusions were based on their philosophical presuppositions that miracles are impossible, especially a miracle like resurrection. They therefore reasoned that no one in his right mind would have written about such things near the time they were purported to occur because eyewitnesses would have put the lie to all their claims.

However, since that time, biblical scholars have amassed so much archaeological and historical evidence to the contrary that not even the most critical unbelieving scholar would deny first century authorship of the whole New Testament. [1] Not only does that conclusion reinforce the claim that the authors were indeed eyewitnesses of the resurrection and the other miracles they record, it adds to the certainty of their writings because other living witnesses could cross-check their details.

Now let’s talk about the accuracy of the documents themselves. Since our Bible is translated from manuscripts that are copies of the originals, doesn’t that ensure that our Bibles are full of inaccuracies? Actually, there is more evidence for the authenticity of our New Testament than for any other major secular writing, which face little to no criticism. There are two basic questions asked of copies of ancient texts to prove reliability. The first is, “how many copies exist?” The more copies scholars have, the more they can compare them with one another, and the more likely it is that they will arrive at the original version. The second question is, “how much time elapsed between the original composition and the recording of the copy in question?”

Review the chart below to learn how many manuscripts scholars have used to develop critical editions of the most significant historical, philosophical, and literary texts of antiquity. There are only two works for which there are more than 100 copies. However, most of these works are broadly considered reliable, though there are only a handful of manuscripts from which to develop a critical edition.

Next, look at the second test—how much time has elapsed between the original manuscript and the earliest copy. A copy of Pliny the Younger’s work is most closely dated to its original, but it was made 750 years after Pliny wrote the original. All of the other copies are even more distanced from the original, one emerging as many as 1,600 years after the original! Yet all of these copies are regarded as reliable representations of the original.  

In contrast, consider the manuscript evidence for the New Testament. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. Additionally, there are 10,000 more in cognate languages, that is, copies of Greek manuscripts in languages very closely related to Greek. By means of these 15,000 manuscripts, scholars have identified every place where the text varies and have by consensus been able to determine the original reading in nearly every situation. The situations in which a consensus could not be reached are so few that all of them would fit on one 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper! Biblical scholars assure that “the variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.” [2]

Such an abundance of near-identical copies as the New Testament texts boast is unheard of in the realm of ancient manuscripts.

God has miraculously preserved the Bible that you hold; it provides the blood-sealed testimony of the Apostles that every word you read inside is true. All the evidence points to one conclusion: the Bible is trustworthy. Regarding it as such is neither ignorant nor a display of blind faith; instead, it is the rational response it deserves.    

If you’re interested in investigating this more, join us for part 3: "Is the Bible Relevant for Modern People?", where we’ll explore how the Bible is a trustworthy foundation when we face adversity in life.

–––

[1] William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955), 136.

[2] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?