Institute of Biblical StudiesApologetics

Winter 2016Page 1

LECTURE 4

The Reliability of the Bible

How We Got our Bible
Revelation / Inspiration / Autographs / Collection / Transmission / Translation

This process raises several questions:

  • How do we know our Bible contain the right books?
  • How do we know that what we read is what was originally written?
  • How do we know that what we read is historically accurate?
  • How do we know that the Bible is “God’s word?”
  1. How Do We Know Our Bible Contains The Right Books? (The Canon)

A. Definition -

B. Key factors related to the official recognition of the canon

1. Geographic diversity both of origin and destination of NT letters

2. Heresy

3. Public reading in Christian worship

4. Death of the Apostles

C. Three phases in recognition of the canon

1. Oral/written testimony of apostles

2. Copies of written materials begin to circulate

3. Corpus of inspired writings recognized by entire church

a. Marcion (AD 140)

b. Muratorian (AD 200)

c. Eusebius of Caesarea (AD c. 300-325)

d. Athanisius (AD 367)

e. 3rd Council of Carthage (AD 397)

D. Criteria related to the recognition of the canon

1. Conformity to the “rule of faith”

2. Apostolic Authority

3. Acceptance/usage

“The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same twenty-seven books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived. All that the several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character. When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and the orientation to the essentials of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the New Testament serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level.” (Barker/Lane/Michels)

Who Wrote the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy, by
Charles E. Hill -- reviewer Paul Foster explains: "Hill
challenges the popular view that the four gospels found in the New
Testament reflect a relatively late selection from among a plethora
of gospel texts. Such a view is often linked to the conspiracy
theory that this choice was made by a coterie of orthodox bishops in
the fourth century attempting to shore up their own version of
Christianity while suppressing other expressions of the faith, and
in the process those ecclesial figures radically distorted the true
message of Jesus. [Hill argues] that the four canonical gospels had
a temporal priority and natural prominence over other gospel texts
and that there was no organized conspiracy to 'suppress' other
texts."
Within the known catalog of "possible second-century papyri of
gospel type texts [Hill] observes that canonical texts occur with
about three or four times the frequency of non-canonical texts. ...
"According to Hill, Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons, who was active
around the year 180] is not presenting an innovative new idea when
he speaks of the four gospels, but is simply transmitting an
established position. ... Hill rejects the views of McDonald and
Pagels who view Irenaeus as an isolated harbinger of a much later
position. He also cites from the early third century the testimony
of Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen who all attest the four
gospels used by the church. Another interesting statistic employed
by Hill is that of Clement of Alexandria's citations of gospel-like
texts.... Hill is certainly correct that Clement of Alexandria
valued the canonical gospels above their non-canonical counterparts.
...
"In chapter five, the discussion again returns to the physical
evidence of manuscripts and forms of text they contain. ... The
early papyrus codices ... are seen as 'significant
literary-technological "packaging" projects which presuppose the
primacy of the four.' Next, Hill delves earlier into Christian
history by considering the evidence from the writings of Justin
Martyr who wrote around the middle of the second century. [S]ince no
traditions in Justin's writings appear to be drawn from other known
gospel type texts, it is inferred that Justin was also a witness to
a fourfold gospel collection. ...
"Hill's book draws upon a great deal of primary evidence.
Furthermore, he handles this evidence in a careful and judicious
manner. Yet, in addition, he manages all this with a light touch."
Expository Times, 122:6 - 2011, pp280-282.

4. Perspectives on the development of the canon.

  1. How Do Know that What We Read Is What Was Originally Written? (Textual Criticism)

A. Problems

1.We don’t have any autographs (originals).

2. Presence of variant readings among the copies we do have.

B. Sources for NT text

1. Copies of early Greek manuscripts (mss.)

a. Papyri (70+ mss.)

b. Uncials (300+ mss.)

c. Minuscules (2850+ mss.)

d. Lectionaries (2000+ mss.)

2. Early translations

a. Latin – 4th century (8000 mss.)

b. Syriac

c. Coptic (Egyptian)

d. Armenian

e. Georgian

3. Patristic quotations

“These quotes are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts,” J. Harold Greenlee, NT Scholar.

C. Determining the original reading: Textual Criticism

  1. How Do We Know That What We Read Is Historically Accurate?

A. What’s at stake?

“. . . it is not possible for any principle theology of the NT to be true if a significant portion of its central historical claims is false.” Craig Blomberg, New Testament Scholar

B. World-view factors related to the rejection of the NT as accurate history

1. Ontologically - Naturalism

2. Epistemological - Historical relativism

a. “All we know are peoples’ reconstructions of the past.”

b. “No reconstruction can claim to be true.”

c. Response

C. Craig Blomberg’s approach to the historicity of the NT

  1. The biblical writers were able to record reliable history
  1. The biblical writers intended to record reliable history

“If, then, it can be determined that the gospels or Acts are primarily historical in form or intent, we will have to come to grip with their truth-claims in a different fashion than if there were good reasons to treat them as historical novels or fiction.” Craig Blomberg, N.T. scholar

  1. The biblical writers did record reliable history insofar as we can test them.

  1. How Do We Know the Bible is God’s Word?

A. Problem

B. Internal evidence

1. The Bible’s claims

2. The testimony of Jesus

a)Christ viewed the OT Scriptures as true, authortative and inspired. (See John Wenham, Christ and the Bible)

  • He constantly treats historical narratives as fact.
  • He consistently appeals to fulfilled prophesy.

b)Christ taught the entire truth of his teaching on a par with Old Testament Scripture.

c)In principle this can be extended the apostles

  • To Christ, his own teaching and the teaching of the Spirit-taught apostles was true, authoritative and inspired.
  • To Christ, what they said under the direction the Spirit, God said.
  • To Christ, the God of the Old Testament is the living God, and in principle the teaching of the New Testament is the teaching of the living God

d)Thus accepting the Bible as true, authoritative and inspired is an entailment of discipleship.

3. Fulfilled prophesy

C. External evidence

  1. Witness of the Spirit
  1. Self-attesting

  1. For further study

Bloomberg, Craig L., The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1987.

Bock, Darrell L. Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody’s Asking. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Brotzman, Ellis R. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Bruce F. F.,The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1960.

______. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1988. In this book Bruce provides a detailed discussion of the development of both the O.T. and N.T. canons.

Carson, D . A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Carson, Moo and Morris have helpful discussions of the historical background and canonicity of each of the New Testament books.

France, R. T., The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1986.

Geisler, Norman L. And William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got our Bible.Chicago: Moody, 1974.

Greenlee, J. Harold, Introduction to New Testament Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.

Moreland, J. P. "The Rationality of Belief in Inerrancy." Trinity Journal 7 NS (Spring 1986): 75-86. Moreland presents a helpful defense of the evangelical commitment to inerrancy.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Wenham, John, Christ and the Bible. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1972. This book is especially helpful is dealing with the question, “How do we know the Bible is the Word of God.”

Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Würthwein gives an overview of the development of the Old Testament text.