Having overviewed some points regarding the nature of evidence, faith, and the existence of God, we turn to the question of why we should trust the Bible. Christians are tempted to say that we should trust the Bible because it is God’s word. This is true. But this will hardly convince an unbeliever, who will point out that such reasoning is begging the question. In other words, we need to prove that it is the word of God, not just assume it. If we can assume that the Bible is true, why can’t Mormons accept their books on the same grounds? Why can’t any number of religions with extra-biblical "revelations" accept their works? The difference is that a solid, objective case can be made for the reliability of the Bible.

In order to make this case, we can view the Bible within a framework of history. We don’t have to assume inspiration to show that the Bible rests on solid historical grounds. We believe the Bible to be inspired, but this belief does not prove that it is inspired. We should be convinced that the Bible is true historically; then we have reason to accept the inspiration of the Bible without hesitation.

We do not have space here to examine the bibliographical data concerning the Bible (i.e., how it came down to us through history). Instead, we will briefly consider some internal questions — criteria by which historians measure ancient documents to ascertain their historical value. Most of these are just common sense.* We will first pose the question and then briefly show that the Bible passes the tests:

Internal Criteria

1. Was the writer in a position to know what he is talking about? Does the text claim to be based on eyewitness accounts?

The biblical writers are much involved in the events about which they write. Eyewitnesses are often appealed to (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 2 Pet. 1:16; Jn. 1:1-3, etc.). They were in a far better position to know what they were talking about than the modern critics.

2. Does the document in question contain specific, and apparently irrelevant, material?

Firsthand sources are often full of details that are not central to the story; false accounts are often generalized. This is not to say that the Bible has irrelevant material. But when we look at given records, there are some details that, on first reading, appear unnecessary. For example, in our reading of John 20:1-8, one might wonder whether it really matters if it was early or late, dark or light. Does it matter that Peter went into the tomb first? or that the burial cloth was folded? Again, these things may be significant; but from an historical viewpoint, why put material like this in unless it happened just as it says? It boosts the historical reliability.

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material?

If a document has material that makes the "heroes" look "bad," or if the material might even weaken the story, then it strengthens the case for truth being the motivation of the writer. Though it sounds odd, the Bible does contain such material. One of the clearest examples of this is in the Gospel accounts in which women are first to discover the empty tomb and report the resurrection. This is not to be negative toward women, but it is an historical fact that women could not testify in courts at that time, as they were considered tale-bearers. Now if the account is fabricated and the writer wanted to pass it off as true, it would be self-defeating to put the women in such a position. They probably would not even be part of the account. But there they are! What accounts for it? This is the way that it really happened! So their inclusion strengthens the case for historical reality. Add to this other disciples, such as Peter, that are often portrayed in a bad light. Their faults are not hidden.

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent?

Is there a coherence to the accounts? Do they make sense? Most would expect some inconsistencies in historical documents, but this does not normally cause problems. Concerning the Bible, we do find a self-consistent theme (even though written over a 1600 year period, from men of differing backgrounds, languages, times, etc.). The Gospel accounts present a consistent portrait of Jesus. There are differences, but these do not equal contradictions. The differences do not change the relative consistency of the accounts.

5. Is there evidence of addition and exaggeration?

"Fish stories" are exaggerated over time. Critics sometimes claim this about the Bible (e.g., that later disciples added the idea that Jesus is God). However, as C.S. Lewis put it: "As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things" (God in the Dock). The evidence for exaggeration is not there.

In the next study, we will ask similar questions regarding external criteria.

*The questions are suggested by Gregory Boyd in Letters From a Skeptic: Victor Books, 1994, pp. 80-86.

Christianity Magazine, July 1997

In our last study, we asked some questions about the internal reliability of the Bible. The questions express criteria by which documents may be examined for reliability and authenticity. Internally, the Bible passes the tests.

Now we turn to some questions that express external criteria by which documents may be tested.* By "external," we refer to the criteria that are applied outside of the documents in question. Some argue that the Bible has no "external" evidences for it. However, the Bible does pass the tests for external criteria. Following are some questions and answers relating to this.

External Criteria

1. Would the authors have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?

If ulterior motives can be established for the author making up the account, then the reliability of the document is not as trustworthy. On the other hand, if, in the writing, the author had nothing to gain and perhaps even something to lose, then the trustworthiness of the document is increased.

Think about the Bible. What motive would the writers have had to make up their stories about Jesus? Rather than helping themselves, they put themselves in harm’s way by telling about Jesus as they did. The preaching of the resurrection caused them to be arrested and persecuted. So they had nothing physical to gain by their accounts. In fact, they lost their lives for the biblical message. Why would they do this for something that was dreamed up by their own imaginations?

2. Are there other sources which confirm material in the document or substantiate the authenticity of it?

Credibility is enhanced by the existence of other sources that corroborate material in the document. Further, it is even more desirable to have outside sources that attest to authorship. (As Boyd notes, though, the same criteria must be applied to these outside sources also.)

The authorship of the New Testament books is attested to by several second-century sources. These men were in a much better position to know what they were talking about than anyone today. So they cannot be lightly dismissed. Further, there are several secular sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Jewish writings) that give information about Jesus and the early Christians.

Incidentally, it is noteworthy that if all copies of the New Testament manuscripts were lost, there are virtually enough quotes from early Christians who wrote that the New Testament could be almost completely reproduced.

3. Does archaeology support or hinder material in the document?

Trustworthiness is increased when archaeological evidence supports the document in question. Credibility is damaged when findings go against the document. Care needs to be taken. The lack of archaeological findings neither helps nor hinders. Skeptics have been embarrased by making charges prior to the findings.

Many findings have been found to support the biblical texts. Even some things that used to be thought contrary to the Bible have been reversed in favor of the Bible (e.g., the existence of the Hittite empire; Luke’s account of the census and birth of Jesus). There is much in favor of the Bible; and we know of nothing conclusive that has proved that the Bible is in error. Assumptions and misinterpretations of findings (or lack thereof) do not prove the Bible to be erroneous.

4. Could those who lived at the time of the writings have falsified the accounts, and would they have had a motive for doing so?

If there were those who could have shown that the account given was made up, and if they had a motive for doing it but did not, then the document’s trustworthiness is increased. We must remember that the Gospel was born in a hostile situation. There were plenty of people who would have refuted the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus if they could have. Many would have loved to have been able to do so (e.g., produce the body of Jesus). But no one could. To the contrary, the message of Christ spread and grew tremendously. Even enemies of Jesus could not deny the miracles that were done in His name (Acts 4:16). When Peter preached on Pentecost, he appealed to what the people knew, because Jesus had not worked in a corner somewhere (Acts 2:22).

All of this just goes to the point that we have good grounds for accepting the reliability of the biblical documents. They are true sources of history; and we may treat the accounts as such. F. F. Bruce commented:

"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt." (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15)

Finally, let us keep in the mind that the Bible does not exist simply as history. It is given for our learning and doing. By it we can be transformed into new creatures, if we will but receive it with meekness and let it be implanted into our hearts (Jas. 1:21).

*Again, the questions are suggested by Gregory Boyd in Letters From a Skeptic: Victor Books, 1994, pp. 80-86.