History of the Bible - Who wrote the Bible?
The Bible was written over a span of
1500 years, by 40 authors. Unlike other religious writings, the Bible reads as
a factual news account of real events, places, people, and dialogue. Historians
and archaeologists have repeatedly confirmed its authenticity.
Using the authors' own writing styles
and personalities, God shows us who he is and what it's like to know him. There
is one central message consistently carried by all 40 authors of the Bible: God,
who created us all, desires a relationship with us. He calls us to know him and
trust him.
The Bible not only inspires us, it
explains life and God to us. It does not answer all the
questions we might have, but enough of them. It shows us how to live with
purpose and compassion. How to relate to others. It encourages us to rely on
God for strength, direction, and enjoy his love for us. The Bible also tells us
how we can have eternal life.
Multiple categories of evidence
support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as its claim to divine
authorship. (Here are the subsections of this article, if you want to jump to
any particular one.)
4. Do historians confirm what
the Bible says about Jesus?
1. How does archaeology support the Bible?
Archaeology cannot
prove that the Bible is God's written word to us. However, archaeology can (and
does) substantiate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have
consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, and
festivals mentioned in the Bible -- sometimes when historians didn't think such
people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus
healing a cripple next to the Pool of Bethesda. The text even describes the
five porticoes (walkways) leading to the pool. Scholars didn't think the pool
existed, until archaeologists found it forty feet below ground, complete with
the five porticoes.1
The Bible has a tremendous amount of
historical detail, so not everything mentioned in it has yet been found through
archaeology. However, not one archaeological find has conflicted with what the
Bible records.2
In contrast, news reporter Lee
Strobel comments about the Book of Mormon: "Archaeology has
repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly
occurred long ago in the Americas. I remember writing to the Smithsonian
Institute to inquire about whether there was any evidence supporting the claims
of Mormonism, only to be told in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see
'no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject
matter of the book.'" Archaeologists have never located cities, persons,
names, or places mentioned in the Book of Mormon.3
Many of the ancient locations
mentioned by Luke, in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, have been
identified through archaeology. "In all, Luke names thirty-two countries,
fifty-four cities and nine islands without an error."4
Archaeology has also refuted many
ill-founded theories about the Bible. For example, a theory still taught in
some colleges today asserts that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch
(the first five books of the Bible), because writing had not been invented in
his day. Then archaeologists discovered the Black Stele. "It had wedge-shaped
characters on it and contained the detailed laws of Hammurabi. Was it
post-Moses? No! It was pre-Mosaic; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000
B.C.). It preceded Moses' writings by at least three centuries."5
Archaeology consistently confirms the
historical accuracy of the Bible.
2. Has the Bible changed over time, or do we have
what was originally written?
Some people have
the idea that the Bible has been translated "so many times" that it
has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were
being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations
are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts
based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
The Old Testament's accuracy was
confirmed by an archaeological discovery in 1947, along today's West Bank in
Israel. "The Dead Sea Scrolls" contained Old Testament scripture
dating 1,000 years older than any manuscripts we had. When comparing the
manuscripts at hand with these, from 1,000 years earlier, we find agreement
99.5% of the time. And the .5% differences are minor spelling variances and
sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
Regarding the New Testament, it is
humanity's most reliable ancient document. We have thousands of copies of the
New Testament, all dated closely to the original writing. In fact, we are more
sure the New Testament remains as it was originally written by its authors,
than we are sure of writings we attribute to Plato, or Aristotle, or
Homer's Iliad.
3. Are the gospel accounts of Jesus reliable?
Four of the authors
of the New Testament each wrote their own biography on the life of Jesus. These
are called the four gospels, the first four books of the New Testament. How can
we be sure these biographies of Jesus are accurate?
When historians try to determine if a
biography is reliable, they ask, "How many other sources report the same
details about this person?" Here's how this works. Imagine you are
collecting biographies of President John F. Kennedy. You find many describing
his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and
almost all of the biographies report similar facts. But what if you found one
biography reporting that he lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? The
other biographies show he lived in the U.S. his entire life. A sensible
historian would go with the accounts that agree with one another.
Regarding Jesus, do we find multiple
biographies reporting similar facts about his life? Yes. Here is a sampling of
facts about Jesus, and where you would find that fact reported in each of their
biographies.
|
|
Matthew
|
Mark
|
Luke
|
John
|
|
Jesus
was born of a virgin
|
1:18-25
|
-
|
1:27,
34
|
-
|
|
He was
born in Bethlehem
|
2:1
|
-
|
2:4
|
-
|
|
He
lived in Nazareth
|
2:23
|
1:9, 24
|
2:51,
4:16
|
1:45,
46
|
|
Jesus
was baptized by John the Baptist
|
3:1-15
|
1:4-9
|
3:1-22
|
-
|
|
He
performed miracles of healing
|
4:24,
etc.
|
1:34,
etc.
|
4:40,
etc.
|
9:7
|
|
He
walked on water
|
14:25
|
6:48
|
-
|
6:19
|
|
He fed
five thousand people with
five loaves and two fish
|
14:7
|
6:38
|
9:13
|
6:9
|
|
Jesus
taught the common people
|
5:1
|
4:25,
7:28
|
9:11
|
18:20
|
|
He
spent time with social outcasts
|
9:10,
21:31
|
2:15,
16
|
5:29,
7:29
|
8:3
|
|
He
argued with the religious elite
|
15:7
|
7:6
|
12:56
|
8:1-58
|
|
The
religious elite plotted to kill him
|
12:14
|
3:6
|
19:47
|
11:45-57
|
|
They
handed Jesus over to the Romans
|
27:1, 2
|
15:1
|
23:1
|
18:28
|
|
Jesus
was flogged
|
27:26
|
15:15
|
-
|
19:1
|
|
He was
crucified
|
27:26-50
|
15:22-37
|
23:33-46
|
19:16-30
|
|
He was
buried in a tomb
|
27:57-61
|
15:43-47
|
23:50-55
|
19:38-42
|
|
Jesus rose
from the dead and
appeared to his followers
|
28:1-20
|
16:1-20
|
24:1-53
|
20:1-31
|
Two of the gospel biographies were
written by the apostles Matthew and John, men who knew Jesus personally and
travelled with him for over three years. The other two books were written by
Mark and Luke, close associates of the apostles. These writers had direct
access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four
gospels because they agreed with what was already common knowledge about Jesus'
life.
Again, the gospels read like news
reports, a factual accounting of the days events, each from their own
perspective. The descriptions are unique to each author, but the facts are in
agreement. The gospels give specific geographical names and cultural details that
have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.
4. Do historians confirm
what the Bible says about Jesus?
The Bible reports
that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was executed by the Romans, and
rose from the dead. Numerous ancient historians corroborate the Bible's account
of the life of Jesus and his followers:
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an
historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate
historians of the ancient world.6 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us
that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a
class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its
origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands
of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."7
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
(A.D. 38-100), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From
Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats,
taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be
the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified
by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."8
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and
Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent
with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly
not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From
the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of
wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked
miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."9
This is remarkable information
considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military
leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet
ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are
presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves.
5. Are there contradictions in the Bible?
While some claim
that the Bible is full of contradictions, this simply isn't true. The number of
apparent contradictions is actually remarkably small for a book of the Bible's
size and scope. What apparent discrepancies do exist are more curiosity than calamity.
They do not touch on any major event or article of faith.
Here is an example of a so-called contradiction.
Pilate ordered that a sign be posted on the cross where Jesus hung. Three of
the Gospels record what was written on that sign:
In Matthew: "This is Jesus, the king
of the Jews."
In Mark: "The king of the
Jews."
In John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king
of the Jews."
The wording is different, hence the
apparent contradiction. The remarkable thing, though, is that all three writers
describe the same event in such detail -- Jesus was crucified. On this they all
agree. They even record that a sign was posted on the cross, and the meaning of
the sign is the same in all three accounts!
What about the exact wording? In the
original Greek of the Gospels, they didn't use a quotation symbol as we do
today to indicate a direct quote. The Gospel authors were making an indirect
quote, which would account for the subtle differences in the passages.
Here is another example of an
apparent contradiction. Was Jesus two nights in the tomb or three nights in the
tomb before His resurrection? Jesus said, prior to his crucifixion, "For
as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the
Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"
(Matthew 12:40). Mark records another statement that Jesus made, "We are
going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests
and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over
to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him.
Three days later he will rise." (Mark 10:33,34)
Jesus was killed on Friday and the
resurrection was discovered on Sunday. How can that be three days and nights in
the tomb? It was a Jewish figure of speech in Jesus' time to count any part of
a day or night as a full day and night. So Friday, Saturday, and Sunday would
be called three days and three nights in Jesus' culture. We speak in similar
ways today -- if a person were to say, "I spent all day shopping," we
understand that the person didn't mean 24 hours.
This is typical of apparent
contradictions in the New Testament. Most are resolved by a closer examination
of the text itself or through studying the historical background.
6. How were the books of the New Testament
determined? Why not accept the apocrypha, the gospel of Judas, or the gospel of
Thomas?
There are solid
reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The church
accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written. Their
authors were friends of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had
entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and
John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of
the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.
The other New Testament authors had
immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus
who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul
started out as a violent opponent of Christianity and a member of the religious
ruling class, but he became an ardent follower of Jesus, convinced that Jesus
rose from the dead.
The reports in the New Testament
books lined up with what thousands of eyewitnesses had seen for themselves.
When other books were written hundreds of years later, it wasn't difficult for
the church to spot them as forgeries. For example, the Gospel of Judas was
written by the Gnostic sect, around 130-170 A.D., long after Judas' death. The
Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 A.D., is another example of a counterfeit
writing erroneously bearing an apostles' name. These and other Gnostic gospels
conflicted with the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often
contained numerous historical and geographical errors.10
In A.D. 367, Athanasius formally
listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon
after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list. These lists, however, were
not necessary for the majority of Christians. By and large the whole church had
recognized and used the same list of books since the first century after
Christ. As the church grew beyond the Greek-speaking lands and needed to
translate the Scriptures, and as splinter sects continued to pop up with their
own competing holy books, it became more important to have a definitive list.
7. Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New
Testament Gospels to be written?
The main reason the
Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and
resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings.
Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to
compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region
were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry.11
However, when the gospel spread
beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there
was a need for written accounts to educate others about Jesus' life and
ministry. Many scholars date the writing of the Gospels between 30 and 60 years
after Jesus' death.
Luke, at the beginning of his gospel,
tells us why he wrote it: "Many have undertaken to draw up an
account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were
handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of
the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from
the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most
excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have
been taught.12
8. Does it matter if Jesus really did and said what
is in the Gospels?
Yes. For faith to
really be of any value, it must be based on facts, on reality. Here is why. If
you were taking a flight to London, you would probably have faith that the jet
is fueled and mechanically reliable, the pilot trained, and no terrorists on
board. Your faith, however, is not what gets you to London. Your faith is
useful in that it got you on the plane. But what actually gets you to London is
the integrity of the plane, pilot, etc. You could rely on your positive
experience of past flights. But your positive experience would not be enough to
get that plane to London. What matters is the object of your faith -- is it
reliable?
Is the New Testament an accurate,
reliable presentation of Jesus? Yes. We can trust the New Testament because
there is enormous factual support for it. This article touched on the following
points: historians concur, archaeology concurs, the four Gospel biographies are
in agreement, the preservation of document copies is remarkable, there is
superior accuracy in the translations. All of this gives a solid foundation for
believing that what we read today is what the original authors wrote and
experienced in real life, in real places.
John, one of the authors sums it up
well, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples,
which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may
have life in his name."13
Sample of what is presented in one of the Gospels...
The Gospels are
presented as matter-of-fact, "this is how it was." Even reports
of Jesus doing the miraculous is written without sensationalism or mysticism.
One typical example is the account in Luke, chapter 8, where Jesus brings a
little girl back to life. Notice the details and clarity in its reporting:
Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of
the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus' feet, pleading with him to come to his
house because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.
As Jesus was on his way, the crowds
almost crushed him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for
twelve years, but no one could heal her.
She came up behind him and touched
the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.
"Who touched me?" Jesus
asked. When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are
crowding and pressing against you." But Jesus said, "Someone touched
me; I know that power has gone out from me."
Then the woman, seeing that she could
not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all
the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly
healed. Then he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in
peace."
While Jesus was still speaking,
someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter
is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher anymore." Hearing
this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will
be healed."
When he arrived at the house of
Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and
the child's father and mother. Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and
mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead
but asleep." They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead.
But he took her by the hand and said,
"My child, get up!" Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up.
Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. Her parents were astonished,
but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.
Like other accounts of Jesus' healing
people, this has a ring of authenticity. If it were fiction, there are portions
of it that would have been written differently. For example, in a fictional
account there wouldn't be an interruption with something else happening. If it
were fiction, the people in mourning would not have laughed at Jesus'
statement; get angry maybe, be hurt by it, but not laugh. And in writing
fiction, would Jesus have ordered the parents to be quiet about it? You would
expect the healing to make a grand point. But real life isn't always smooth.
There are interruptions. People do react oddly. And Jesus had his own reasons
for not wanting the parents to broadcast this.
The best test of the Gospels
authenticity is to read it for yourself. Does it read like a report of real
events, or like fiction? If it is real, then God has revealed himself to us.
Jesus came, lived, taught, inspired, and brought life to millions who read his
words and life today. What Jesus stated in the gospels, many have found
reliably true: "I have come that they might have life, and have it more
abundantly." (John 10:10)
A comparison of the New Testament to other ancient writings...
Here is how the New Testament
compares to other ancient writings*:
|
Author
|
Book
|
Date
Written
|
Earliest
Copies
|
Time Gap
|
# of
Copies
|
|
Homer
|
Iliad
|
800
B.C.
|
c. 400
B.C.
|
c. 400
yrs.
|
643
|
|
Herodotus
|
History
|
480-425
B.C.
|
c. A.D.
900
|
c.
1,350 yrs.
|
8
|
|
Thucydides
|
History
|
460-400
B.C.
|
c. A.D.
900
|
c.
1,300 yrs.
|
8
|
|
Plato
|
|
400
B.C.
|
c. A.D.
900
|
c.
1,300 yrs.
|
7
|
|
Demosthenes
|
|
300
B.C.
|
c. A.D.
1100
|
c.
1,400 yrs.
|
200
|
|
Caesar
|
Gallic Wars
|
100-44
B.C.
|
c. A.D.
900
|
c.
1,000 yrs.
|
10
|
|
Tacitus
|
Annals
|
A.D.
100
|
c. A.D.
1100
|
c.
1,000 yrs.
|
20
|
|
Pliny
Secundus
|
Natural
History
|
A.D.
61-113
|
c. A.D.
850
|
c. 750
yrs.
|
7
|
|
New
Testament
|
A.D.
50-100
|
c. A.D.
114
(portions)
c. A.D. 200
(books)
c. A.D. 325
(complete N.T.)
|
c. +50
yrs.
c. 100 yrs.
c. 225 yrs.
|
5366
|
Chart listing some of the major archaeological finds...
|
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND
|
SIGNIFICANCE
|
|
Mari
Tablets
|
Over
20,000 cuneiform tablets, which date back to Abraham's time period, explain
many of the patriarchal traditions of Genesis.
|
|
Ebla
Tablets
|
Over
20,000 tablets, many containing law similar to the Deuteronomy law code. The
previously thought fictitious five cities of the plain in Genesis 14 (Sodom,
Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) are identified.
|
|
Nuzi
Tablets
|
They
detail customs of the 14th and 15th century parallel to the patriarchal
accounts such as maids producing children for barren wives.
|
|
Black
Stele
|
Proved
that writing and written laws existed three centuries before the Mosaic laws.
|
|
Temple
Walls of Karnak, Egypt
|
Signifies
a 10th century BC reference to Abraham.
|
|
Laws of
Eshnunna (ca. 1950 BC)
Lipit-Ishtar Code (ca. 1860 BC)
Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC)
|
Show
that the law codes of the Pentateuch were not too sophisticated for that
period.
|
|
Ras
Shamra Tablets
|
Provide
information on Hebrew poetry.
|
|
Lachish
Letters
|
Describe
Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah and give insight into the time of
Jeremiah.
|
|
Gedaliah
Seal
|
References
Gedaliah is spoken of in 2 Kings 25:22.
|
|
Cyrus
Cylinder
|
Authenticates
the Biblical description of Cyrus' decree to allow the Jews to rebuild the
temple in Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4).
|
|
Moabite
Stone
|
Gives
information about Omri, the sixth king of Israel.
|
|
Black
Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
|
Illustrates
how Jehu, king of Israel, had to submit to the Assyrian king.
|
|
Taylor
Prism
|
Contains
an Assyrian text which detail Sennacherib's attack on Jerusalem during the
time of Hezekiah, king of Israel.
|
|
PAST CHARGES BY CRITICS
|
ANSWERED BY ARCHAEOLOGY
|
|
Moses
could not have written Pentateuch because he lived before the invention of
writing.
|
Writing
existed many centuries before Moses.
|
|
Abraham's
home city of Ur does not exist.
|
Ur was
discovered. One of the columns had the inscription "Abram."
|
|
The
city built of solid rock called "Petra" does not exist.
|
Petra
was discovered.
|
|
The
story of the fall of Jericho is myth. The city never existed.
|
The
city was found and excavated. It was found that the walls tumbled in the
exact manner described by the biblical narrative.
|
|
The
"Hittites" did not exist.
|
Hundreds
of references to the amazing Hittite civilization have been found. One can
even get a doctorate in Hittite studies at the University of Chicago.
|
|
Belshazzar
was not a real king of Babylon; he is not found in the records.
|
Tablets
of Babylonia describe the reign of this coregent and son of Nabonidus.
|
