by James Thomas Lee, Jr. 12/01/95 Copyrighted 2001 by James Thomas Lee, Jr. Copyright Number: TXu 713-027
Chapter 4 - Proving the Correctness and Reliability of the Bible {367 words}
Chapter 4a - Why a Canon? {791 words}
Chapter 4b - The Canon Process {2,632 words}
Chapter 4c - The Evidence of Archaeological Data {1,530 words}
Chapter 4d - Elaborate Copying Procedures {1,421 words}
Thus far, the existence of God, or at least that of proving Him in a current setting, plus the proof of Jesus Christ as Lord have been presented. Now, the third and final fundamental of the Faith, a fundamental which pertains to the overall reliability of Scriptures, must be considered. As one should logically ask when examining that Book, what good is the Bible if a person cannot have complete and absolute assurance that it comes from God? The answer is none! Well-meaning, trite phrases are nice. They can make a person feel good. But what an individual really needs to know is the truth of God, and that knowledge can only come from a book which has come from Him. Therefore, in undertaking this task of validating His Word, the discussion shall proceed through four important steps.
The first is to show why it was and why it is necessary for Christians to have a reliable version of Scriptures. In addition to what may already be an obvious reason, there are three others. After that, the second step or item for discussion will be to explain how early Church leaders actually determined which literary works should or should not be included. In other words, what criteria or criterion did they actually use to accept or reject certain writings? Then, as a part of that same discussion, a short book-by-book analysis will be conducted to show that each book in the present-day Bible can be qualified and that it truly does belong. The third step will be to briefly discuss some of the archaeological data which have been uncovered through the years and to show how they have had an impact on the overall understanding and acceptance of the Bible. Then, fourth and last of all, the standards by which the original Bible has been copied and preserved through the years will be examined. At that point, all should see that the putting together and preserving of this Book has not been clumsy, haphazard, or even half-hearted. In fact, the whole process has been just the opposite - very thorough, very meticulous, and done with great care!
a. Why a Canon?
The analysis begins by considering the first item listed above, an item which asks the question why. Why did anyone ever conclude that a complete definition of Scriptures was needed? Or to use the more technical expression, why was canonization thought to be so important? "Canon" comes from the Greek word which means "reed" and carries with it the idea of a rule or basis. The early Christian leaders thought it was necessary to define a clear, scriptural standard for the Church, a standard in the form of one Bible which would never change! Since the days of Moses, the Jews had always had their Bible. For them, it was what we now call the Old Testament. But a short while after Christ and the Apostles were gone, the new leaders of the early Church reasoned that a certified continuation to the Old Testament was needed, one which would include all of the important teachings of Christ. Since they believed that they through Jesus had heard from God, they naturally wanted to preserve His messages for all generations. This is the obvious reason for canonizing Scriptures, the reason being that one might have the true teachings of Christ and also the actual Word of God. Yet, there are three more! In his book, How We Got Our Bible, Mr. Ralph Earle lists three specific challenges to the early Church, and each of the three caused canonization to take on a special, increased significance [1].
The first was to counter the adversarial work of a person named Marcion, as well as others who might have been like him. That heretic, as the author has referred to him, lived around 140 A.D, and he had developed his own list of what he was calling the valid books for the Bible. In fact, he had already begun spreading that list throughout the area to other churches. As a result of his uninvited and unwelcomed activity, his unauthenicated version of Scriptures was creating much havoc among churchgoers, most likely because he had either added to or taken away from what many had believed to be the correct list. Hence, it became necessary for the early Church leaders to establish an official Canon, first of all, so that a manuscript could be provided which might be used with confidence by all. Those early Church leaders had wanted to define the Canon for God's Word in order to eliminate and avoid any future confusion within the Church.
According to Mr. Earle, the second reason for canonizing Scriptures was to meet the challenge of a mistake which had already been made in some Eastern churches. Those people had been using the wrong book! The author does not elaborate, but he does indicate that those churches had been using a manuscript which looked similar to the Bible, yet was different. What those early Christians had been using was not the authorized Word of God, meaning that the likelihood of their being persuaded or misled by false teaching was high. Therefore, an official Canon of God's Word was needed, secondly, so that any future use of invalid texts could be reduced or altogether eliminated. Imagine the frustration of learning that you had received a book which was called the bible, only to learn years later that you had been given a counterfeit! Early Church leaders were sensitive to this possibility and wanted to avoid any chances for a repeat occurrence.
Mr. Earle lists the final reason why canonization became so important, but this explanation might be somewhat difficult for many to comprehend! According to the author, the Edict of Diocletian, which had been passed in 303 A.D., declared that all sacred books of Christians should be destroyed. That, of course, included Bibles! But also included in the penalty for that crime was the possibility of death to the Christian who had actually possessed or held onto one of those forbidden works. Therefore, those people of the early Church, while they did not object to dying for their faith, did object to dying for a book which was phony. They were willing to pay the ultimate price for their faith in the Lord, and many did! However, they wanted to be absolutely sure that they were doing so for the right Book and the proper cause. In this country, people so far have not had to forfeit their life or much of anything else because of a particular religious persuasion. As a result, it is difficult for many of us to even relate to such a thing. But those in the early Church who had learned to live each day with that possibility, thirdly, wanted to at least feel that they were dying for the right Book!
b. The Canon Process
The above reasons for canonizing the Bible are clear, and in my opinion, each one is reasonable. The predicaments described above concerning the early Church called for immediate, sure action, and the leaders of the Church responded! Now, step two in this analysis, which is that of identifying the approach used for canonizing Scriptures, must be examined. To do that, the question asked earlier is again asked. How did the early church leaders actually canonize Scriptures? What criteria or criterion did they actually use to accept or reject certain writings? According to Misters Norman Geisler and William E. Nix, in their work A General Introduction To The Bible, Apostolic authority was one standard [2]. They trusted the testimony of Jesus' disciples. According to Mr. John Murray in his book, The Attestation Of Scripture, the Lord Himself was another method [3]. Hence, the early leaders also trusted the known testimony of the Lord. Both of these sources, plus a few more which will be described later, were used to verify the Bible. But exactly how all of this was done is the topic to now be considered.
Recall one of the conclusions which was drawn earlier from the fact of Jesus' Resurrection! At the end of the previous chapter, a statement was made which said that we can trust what Jesus did and said because His Resurrection shows that He was approved of God. One thing that He did was to select twelve close followers to be His disciples. Eleven of those individuals ultimately became His Apostles, meaning that they saw Him after His Resurrection. Therefore, with the exception of Judas who had betrayed the Lord and killed himself, we can trust the remaining eleven because Jesus had selected them and also because, in John 16:13-15, He had promised that the truth would be revealed to them. Being able to trust those men is what the authors above meant by Apostolic authority. Next, we can trust what Jesus, Himself, said because He is the Lord, and He had plenty to say about the Old and New Testament writers! Either directly or indirectly, He authenicated many, even most of the Old and New Testament writers, in all accounting for fifty-six of the sixty-six Books. The steps of this certification process are listed below.
1. Jesus is approved because of His Resurrection. The twelve Apostles who were called by Jesus are identified, thus approved, in Matthew 10:1-4. Note that Judas is singled out as the traitor! The other eleven, however, were faithful to the end and are trustworthy. Of these, Peter, John, and Matthew wrote Scriptures. Those three men accounted for the Gospels of Matthew and John and the Books of I and II Peter, I, II and III John, and Revelation, for a total of eight Books.
2. The Apostle Peter, in II Peter 3:15, put his stamp of approval on Paul, and Peter was approved in step one. This gives credence to the Books of Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and probably Hebrews, for a total of fourteen Books.
3. Paul, who was approved in step two, gave credence to Mark and Luke in II Timothy 4:11. Mark wrote based on conversations with Peter, Luke, Paul, and other witnesses. He was the faithful reporter, so this gives credence to the Book of Mark. Luke was the faithful physician who had accompanied Paul on many of his missionary journeys, thus giving credence to the Gospel of Luke and also to the Book of Acts, for a total of three Books.
4. Jesus authenicated Moses in Mark 7:10. Jesus was approved in step one, and Mark was approved in step three. These accreditations give credence to the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, for a total of five books.
5. Moses authenicated Joshua in Deuteronomy 31:7, and Moses was approved in step four. Some question whether Joshua actually wrote his own account, but the use of the words "we" and "us" in verses 5:1, 6 suggest that he probably did. Thus, these facts give credence to the Book of Joshua, for a total of one Book.
6. Luke called Samuel a prophet in Acts 3:24 and Joel a prophet in Acts 2:16. Since Luke was approved in step three, this gives credence to the Books of Judges (by tradition), Ruth, and Joel. Luke, in Acts 13:22, says that David was a man after God's own heart. This gives credence to much of the Book of Psalms, for a total of four Books.
7. Jesus called Daniel a prophet in Matthew 24:15. Jesus and Matthew were approved in step one. So, these accreditations give credence to the Book of Daniel, for a total of one Book.
8. Daniel, who was approved in step seven, called Jeremiah a prophet in Daniel 9:2. This gives credence to the Books of I and II Kings (by Jewish tradition), Jeremiah, and Lamentations, for a total of four Books.
9. Jeremiah credits Obadiah in I Kings 18:2-4 with being a devout believer and a protector of prophets. Jeremiah was approved in step eight. He called Zephaniah a priest in Jeremiah 21:1, and he also identified Micah as a prophet in Jeremiah 26:18. Hence, these accounts give credence to the Books of Obadiah, Micah, and Zephaniah, for a total of three Books.
10. In Matthew 12:39-42, Jesus called Jonah a prophet and Solomon wise. Since Jesus and Matthew were approved in step one, this gives credence to the Books of Jonah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Songs of Solomon, for a total of four Books.
11. Jesus recognized Isaiah as a prophet in Matthew 13:14. Jesus and Matthew were approved in step one, thus certifying the Book of Isaiah, for a total of one Book.
12. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was leader of the assembly in Acts 15:12-15, showing that he was accepted by the Apostles. The Apostles were approved in step one, and Luke was approved in step three, giving credence to the Book of James, for a total of one Book.
13. Jesus, saying "for it is written," went on to quote Zechariah 13:7 in Matthew 26:31. Jesus and Matthew were approved in step one. Thus, Zechariah is accepted, for a total of one Book.
14. Paul, saying "As it is written," went on to quote Job 5:13 in I Corinthians 3:19. Paul was approved in step two. Thus, Job is approved, for a total of one Book.
15. Paul, saying "just as it is written," went on to quote Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17. In Acts 13:41, Luke, saying "Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you," quoted Habakkuk 1:5. In addition to his work being referenced, Luke also called Habakkuk a prophet. Since Paul was approved in step two and Luke in step three, Habakkuk is accepted, for a total of one Book.
16. Paul, saying "Just as it is written," went on to quote Malachi 1:2-3 in Romans 9:13. In Matthew 11:10, Jesus, saying "it is written," also goes on to quote Malachi 3:1. Paul was approved in step two. Jesus and Matthew were approved in step one. So, Malachi is accepted, for a total of one Book.
17. In Romans 9:25-26, Paul, saying "As he [God] says in Hosea," then quoted Hosea 2:23 and Hosea 1:10. Matthew, saying "what the Lord had said through the prophet," goes on to quote Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Paul called Hosea a prophet. Since Paul was approved in step two and Matthew in step one, Hosea is accepted, for a total of one Book.
18. Luke, in Acts 7:42-43, saying "This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets," then quoted Amos 5:25-27. Luke, who was approved in step three, called Amos a prophet, making that Book acceptable, for a total of one Book.
19. Paul, saying "As it is written," goes on to quote Ezekiel 36:22 in Romans 2:24. Paul was approved in step two. So, Ezekiel is accepted, for a total of one Book.
Only ten of the sixty-six Books do not trace to a specific, formal authorization by either Jesus or one of the Apostles, but those remaining Books have been approved based on the following additional information. For convenience, the numbering begins where it just left off, at twenty.
20. Ezra was priest and leader of the Jewish people during the rebuilding of the Temple. He is credited with having written the historical Old Testament Books of I and II Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Yet, he was not formally accredited by either Jesus or the Apostles. Other uncertified historical Old Testament authors include Nahum and Haggai. In Ezra 5:1, the author of that Book confirmed that both Zechariah, who was earlier accepted in step thirteen, and Haggai were prophets. But of course, Ezra himself still is not certified! So, Haggai cannot be either. To resolve this conflict over Ezra, Nahum, and Haggai, the Jewish historian Josephus is consulted. In his book, Antiquities Of The Jews, Book IX, Chapter XI, Section Three, he called Nahum a prophet [4]. In Book XI, Chapter IV, Section Five, he also corroborated Ezra by calling Haggai and Zechariah prophets [5]. And in Chapter V, Section One, he indicated that Ezra was a righteous man with a good reputation, that he was very knowledgeable of the Law of Moses, and that he was a principle priest among the people [6]. On this testimony, six of the ten Books gain credibility, both because of their general acceptance by the public and also because of the reliable witness of a secular historian. That leaves only four Books and possibly as many as six authors to confirm.
21. A few authors of Old Testament Books are not known, such as the writers of I and II Samuel and Esther. However, those Books were not questioned during their day, and they closely match the additional evidence provided by Josephus. In step 20 above, Josephus acknowledged Ezra and his position. In I Chronicles 29:29, written by Ezra, a reference is made to "the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer." In I Chronicles 27:24, a similar reference is made to "the book of the annals of King David." Hence, Ezra through those two separate references was qualifying Samuel, Nathan, Gad, and David. By tradition, the Books of I and II Samuels are believed to have had multiple authors, namely Samuel and Nathan, possibly David and maybe even Gad. While absolute authorship is not clear, the chief priests, in saying "for this is what the prophet has written," quoted II Samuels 5:2 in Matthew 2:6. Consequently, this combination of events gives credence to I and II Samuels, leaving only two Books to question.
22. Only Esther and Jude remain. According to the Introduction to this Book in the New International Version (NIV) Bible, Jude was accepted and referenced by the disciples of the Apostles and also by the present-day biblical scholars of that period [7]. For example, Clement of Rome (96 A.D.), who was the disciple of the Apostle Paul, Clement of Alexandria (155-215), who was an early biblical scholar and teacher of Origen, Tertullian of Carthage (150-222), who was a distinguished Christian theologian, and Origen (185-254), who was referred to by Mr. F. F. Bruce in The Canon Of Scripture as the greatest biblical scholar among the Greek fathers [8], all accepted Jude as canon Scripture. Therefore, based on their joint testimony, Jude is accepted, leaving only Esther as a questionable Book in the canonized Scriptures.
23. According to Mr. Bruce, the Book of Esther was the source of the text for the popular and sacred Jewish festival of Purim, a celebration of Yahweh's love for Israel [9]. He goes on to express the belief that this Book should be accepted if for no other reason than because of that unique distinction.
Thus, all sixty-six Books of the Bible have been carefully scrutinized and considered before being made a part of inspired Scriptures. As one can see, the process has been very logical and for the most part fullproof. In essence, those who came up with the Canon began with the single, simple premise that Jesus is Lord. They then considered the writings of those whom He had chosen, hence the Apostles, plus the writings of those whom the Apostles had chosen. Eyewitness data was used. Even secular historians got into the act. One could say that many were involved at least to some degree and also that the whole process involved constructing an actual audit trail based on one credible individual's certification of another. Hence, these writers essentially cleared or confirmed each other.
But an interesting phenomenon arises from this investigation! Even though the Apocrypha, which are the books between the Old and New Testaments and also those which comprise the Catholic Bible, was written before the time of Christ, no one has placed a stamp of approval on any of it. Misters Geisler and Nix point out a fascinating fact surrounding these books, namely that no one has recognized them as inspired [10]! One Alexandrian, Jewish philosopher who quoted Scriptures regularly, a man named Philo (20 B.C. - 40 A.D.), never referred to the Apocrypha as inspired. Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus (30 - 100 A.D.), who has already been referenced several times in this text, never treated those writings as inspired, either. Neither Jesus nor any of the other New Testament writers ever referred to them. In fact, numerous biblical scholars, including Origen, Jerome, Martin Luther, and even many Roman Catholic scholars, have actually opposed the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone today should accept these books, either! It was not until 1546 A.D. that those writings were finally added to the Catholic Bible, and this time period is well beyond that time when the Canon was formally established.
The sixty-six Books which make up the Christian Old and New Testament Bible are the only works available to mankind that are recognized to be both inspired by God and also a record of Jesus Christ. Of course, Jesus is the only man in history to have been resurrected. Thus, not only do these facts make the Bible very unique and special, but all of these pieces when put together make Christianity, itself, very unique and special. This Faith, unlike all of the others, did not originate with man. It came from God! God, who can be shown to exist in a current setting, sent Jesus to this earth in the form of a man to die for us and then to resurrect Himself from the grave. These are not mere childhood fables. They are in many cases clear, level-headed reports filed by credible historians, both secular and non-secular.
During the days when Christ walked the earth, the Romans and Jews tried diligently to get rid of Him, but they failed! Later, the Romans tried with all of their power and might to destroy the New Testament Church, but they failed at that, too! They tried to torture and kill Christians, and while many faithful Saints did die, the enemies of the early Church could not stop what God had started. The Bible records numerous instances where early Christianity was opposed by Roman brutality, but in the long run, Rome failed, not Christianity! Now, years and centuries later, not one piece of historical evidence can be found which casts serious doubt on any part of this fact-filled story. Christianity, the one true Christ-centered religion for all of mankind, has survived the Ages for the simple reason that it is real!
c. The Evidence of Archaeological Data
The third part of this evaluation will be to look at some of the archaeological evidence which has been accumulated over the years. However, before looking at that specific data, a point which was made earlier concerning this matter of archaeology needs to be reiterated, and that point is simply this! According to the Liberty Illustrated Bible Dictionary, no archaeological data have ever been found which can successfully challenge or refute the truth of either God's existence, of Jesus and His Resurrection, or of God's Word [11]. In his book, Rivers In The Desert; History Of Negev by Mr. Nelson Glueck, this renowned Jewish archaeologist expresses very much the same sentiment, as he states that archaeology has, many times, even confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible [12]. Rather than confuse, distort, or even contradict the reality of spiritual matters, the many archaeological discoveries which have been made have actually supported and strengthened what should be a person's total confidence in and understanding of the Bible. Thus, these comments suggest a basic truth about Scriptures that should become very obvious in the examples which are presented below.
The first example comes from Mr. McDowell and concerns the discovery of the Ebla Kingdom [13]. The significance of that find does not relate to the accuracy of Scriptures, but rather to the early existence of a "written" Old Testament. Some Bible critics, called higher critics because they attack the validity of the original manuscripts, have claimed that the five Books written by Moses could not have really been written by him. They say that this period, which would have been about 1400 B.C., was too primitive for such advanced writing, also that the actual technique of writing, itself, was still unknown.
Hence, instead of crediting the first five Books of the Bible to Moses, these critics have suggested that those Books were actually written much later in time, somewhere between 538 B.C. and 331 B.C., or perhaps even later than that. However, the archaeological discovery of the ancient Ebla Kingdom remains in 1968 has shown that the critics are wrong concerning the beginning of writing! According to Mr. McDowell, seventeen thousand "written" tablets have been recovered since 1974 from the Ebla Kingdom alone, and this Kingdom existed one thousand years before Moses, in the same part of the world! Consequently, while the archaeological discovery of this special people and their writings does not prove conclusively that Moses did write the first five Books of the Bible, it certainly does show that he could have. The ability to write was there, so he would not have been inhibited by any sort of writing restriction. In addition, there is not any other credible evidence to cast doubt on the fact that he did write those Books, either!
The second example is simply called the "Lachish Letters". Those writings, discovered in 1935 by the late Mr. J. L. Starkey, compare closely to the Hebrew-style prose written during the time of the Prophet Jeremiah [14]. The letters, which were composed entirely by non-Biblical authors, discuss some very specific events surrounding a war between Babylon and Judah. That battle took place during Jeremiah's lifetime, and the letters even mention Jeremiah by name. They also mention the existence of a certain "prophet", even though the name, Jeremish, and the term "prophet" are not explicitly linked together. The point is simply this. While those writings may not mean that the Prophet Jeremiah was the same prophet to whom those people were referring, it is clearly possible that he might have been.
Furthermore, in Jeremiah 34:6-7, Jeremiah, the prophet as well as the writer of that portion of Scriptures, makes a comment about that same battle between Babylon and Judah, this time to indicate that there were only two fortified cities which remained, Lachish and Azekah. According to Mr. J. P. Free, in his book Archaeology And Bible History, Letter IV of those letters corroborates this writing by Jeremiah [15]. The letter also highlights what Jeremiah wrote by showing how Nebuchadnezzar's army was actually closing in on the city. Therefore, in this instance, the archaeological discovery does not counter Bible higher critics, but it does provide evidence and additional information to support the validity of a very specific Old Testament writing, written during a very specific time period, by a man recognized by the people of those times.
The third and final example, and possibly the most significant of all to this generation, is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to Mr. Millar Burrows in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls, a fifteen-year-old shepherd boy, named Muhammad adh-Dhib, found those records. However, the exact details as to how it happened are sketchy [16]! Some say that the boy was searching for a lost goat which had wandered into a cave. The boy found the goat. Then, he saw the Scrolls! Some say that the goat went into the cave and that the boy hurled a rock through the cave's opening. Instead of hitting the goat, the rock struck and broke the pottery which contained the Scrolls. The shattering of the clay containers made a distinctive noise, so the boy entered the cave to investigate. Then, according to this version of the story, the discovery was made! Others say that the boy simply entered the cave to seek shelter from a storm, and at that time, he saw them. Whichever way it was, exactly what brought that young man to the cave in question is not important. The important fact, for whatever the circumstances might have been, is that the Scrolls were discovered!
The value of that uncovering has been dramatic in this saga of accreditating Scriptures because when the Scrolls were examined, they were found to contain a copy of the Old Testament Book of Isaiah. Before that discovery, the oldest complete Hebrew manuscript, which had been dated to about 916 A.D., was one called the Massoretic text. Those who study ancient writings and inscriptions are called paleographers. And according to Misters Geisler and Nix, paleographers have dated this new Book of Isaiah, the one which was found within the Scrolls, back to about 125 B.C., making it over one thousand years older than the previous oldest [17]. More than that, though, a close comparison between the two different copies amazingly showed that they were almost identical! The exact percent of consistency was given at ninety-five percent, which is considered by all to be phenomenal. Mr. Gleason Archer in his book A Survey Of The Old Testament, says that the five percent variation was nothing more than a slip of the pen or an occasional spelling which had changed between the two writings [18]. Neither of those causes for differences, however, has shed any doubt on the accuracy or agreement of the two works. They were prepared over a millennium apart but were exact in nearly every detail!
As one might well imagine, archaeology has been like a good friend over the years to Bible proponents. Despite uncovering many ancient civilizations and making other fascinating discoveries, nothing that they have found has ever disproven anything recorded in the Bible. The three instances noted above are just a small number of all that has been substantiated by archaeologists. At the same time, the Bible has even helped those individuals in some of their efforts! In I Kings 9:26, for example, the town of Ezion-Geber was described as being "near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea." Archaeologists were able to use that information out of the Bible to locate the remains of the town. Before consulting Scriptures, they had not even known that it was there, but with the help of God's Word, they were able to quickly find the ancient city and do their research. In similar fashion, archaeologists have also used the Bible to aid them in discoveries of and about Nineveh, the city where the Prophet Jonah was sent to preach. They have even uncovered information about Belshazzar which corroborates the writings that are found in the Book of Daniel, Chapter Five.
Therefore, with all of the above as having been said, the conclusion should be clear. On the one hand, we have the various theories and philosophies from the secular powers of this world which have sought and even now seek to oppose everything that pertains to the Bible and biblical truth. On the other hand, we have a simple story about God, Jesus, and the Bible, a story which in almost every aspect proves itself, a story which has never been disproven, and a story which is often substantiated by secular sources. Yet, rarely do we ever hear a word about any of these so-called matters of the Faith, matters which in our civilization and culture are considered to be unimportant and only to be received by the unintelligent and the under-advanced. In my opinion, the obvious brainwashing in all of this is uncanny, even undeniable! Nevertheless, God's plan is still logical, it is still built on a very solid foundation, and that foundation can only be found in our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.
d. Elaborate Copying Procedures
Before ending this section on God's Word, the final part of the analysis involves taking a quick look at the copying standards which were employed by the faithful copiers of Scriptures. Like all of the other pieces to this saga, those who once had a job to do did it without fail, and as one might expect, they accomplished their work in a very meticulous fashion. The criteria for certifying the quality of copying is first to consider the number of copies which have survived through the Ages, relative to the number of other historical works. Obviously, the more plentiful the copies, the more reliable is the text. Then, the second criterion is to evaluate the accuracy of those copies when compared to each other.
First of all, what is known concerning the number of copies of the Bible? The answer is plenty! According to Mr. Charles Leach in his book, Our Bible. How We Got It, counting the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, and the other early versions, there are more than twenty-four thousand manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament [19]. By comparison, the second most plentiful historical work is the Iliad written by Homer, for which there are only six hundred and forty-three copies. Mr. S. E. Peters, in The Harvest Of Hellenism, points out that no other work in history was copied more frequently in antiquity than the Christian New Testament [20], and certainly the number of surviving copies would suggest that his comment is correct.
Concerning the Old Testament, not as many copies are available. Besides that, the date of the oldest version for a long time, as was shared earlier, had been 916 A.D., at least it had been until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But with that find, the oldest version then became about 125 B.C., which was over one thousand years farther back in time. By this discovery, not only was the accuracy of the copying process verified, but also a copy became available to mankind which could be placed over one thousand years closer to the original! Since the writing of the Old Testament was completed around 400 B.C., the Dead Sea Scrolls successfully put the new oldest copy to within a few hundred years of the original. Hence, the strength of the Old Testament comes not so much from the number of copies as from the nearly exact copying procedures which were undoubtedly used over that span of years. The early scribes who had had to write out those words by hand were very conscientious and devoted to their work.
The second criterion for evaluating the copying process is to examine the accuracy of the copies. Obviously, it is one thing to reproduce an original manuscript, but if there are numerous errors in the reproduction methods, then any confidence in the resulting copy will be small. One should note that the quality of copies of the Old Testament has already been established by the earlier analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For the New Testament, Misters Geisler and Nix write about a similar copying comparison process which was done on the Iliad and also on the New Testament [21]. According to these gentlemen, only forty lines of the New Testament, which in all contains a total of about twenty thousand lines, caused any concern to analysts. That count of lines is only two-tenths of one percent of the whole Testament, meaning that the copies are approximately 99.8 percent pure. By comparison, seven hundred and sixty-four lines of the Iliad with its fifteen thousand six hundred total lines caused similar concern. The error statistic in this second text is about 4.9 percent, making that work in antiquity still good but only about 95.1 percent pure.
The conclusion of this comparison is simple! There are many more copies of the New Testament, yet far fewer errors than those found in the second most prevalent ancient work. And these findings are not bogus. They are real! They represent the painstaking efforts of many qualified scholars who have evaluated these works over long periods of time. Thus, if one chooses to accept the second manuscript, which is the Iliad, as reliable, then surely one should also accept the first, which is the New Testament. Therefore, not only is there no reason to reject the Bible as God's Word, accurate and well preserved, but there is actually every reason to accept it as truth and also as a genuine copy of the original.
In providing evidences to this generation for the reliability of Scriptures, God has left no stone unturned. He has carefully laid a solid framework from which the Apostles and other writers of Scriptures were taken. He has been detailed to the point of having most of those writers corroborate one another. He has made sure that there would be plenty of evidence for archaeologists to uncover. He has caused those involved to be very competent in their copying methods. Lastly, He has preserved plenty of information for those who would actually analyze the copies. Then, He wrapped His whole case around the historically factual Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As a result of all of this genuine, easily verifiable data, one is left wondering why faith is even a factor in this debate. Based on all of the evidence, how much faith does it really take to accept the Bible? The answer, in my opinion, is either none or very little. This Book proves itself, and ALL of the accompanying data which exists in nature supports that proof! Not one fabric or piece of evidence has yet been found which can successfully challenge the validity of the Bible!
ENDNOTES
1. Ralph Earle, How We Got Our Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971), page 41. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 37.]
2. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), page 183. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 36.]
3. John Murray, The Attestation Of Scripture, The Infallible Word (a symposium) (Philadelphia: Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Co., 1946), page 18. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 36.]
4. Josephus, page 209.
5. Ibid, page 233.
6. Ibid, page 234.
7. Kenneth Baker, general editor, The NIV Study Bible - New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985), page 1918.
8. F. F. Bruce, The Canon Of Scripture (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), page 72.
9. Ibid, page 35.
10. Geisler and Nix, page 173. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, pages 35-36.]
11. Herbert Lockyer, Sr., General editor, The Liberty Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986) page 89.
12. Nelson Glueck, Rivers In The Desert; History Of Negev (Philadelphia: Jewish Publications Society Of America, 1969), page 31. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 65.]
13. McDowell, page 68.
14. William F. Albright, "The Bible After Twenty Years Of Archaeology," Religion In Life, Volume 21 (Autumn, 1952), pages 537-550. [Note that this reference was taken from the book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume II, by Mr. Josh McDowell (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1986), page 342.]
15. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology And Bible History (Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press, 1969), page 223. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume II, page 344.]
16. Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Gramercy Publishing Company, 1986), page 4.
17. Geisler and Nix, page 263. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 58.]
18. Gleason Archer, A Survey Of The Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), page 19. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 58.]
19. Charles Leach, Our Bible. How We Got It (Chicago: Moody Press, 1898), page 145. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 39.]
20. S. E. Peters, The Harvest Of Hellenism (New York: Simon And Schuster, 1971), page 50. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 39.]
21. Geisler and Nix, pages 366-367. [Note that this reference was taken from Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volume I, page 43.]
CHAPTER 5. RECOGNIZING OUR NEED FOR A SAVIOR
Send email to: tlee6040@aol.com