False Impressions

Consider the following statements:

• The Bible says that God helps those who help themselves. • The books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe. • “Cleanliness is next to godliness” is in the Bible. • According to the Bible, the earth is flat. • The earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries AD. • The Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe. • The English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process. How many of the above statements do you think are true? The answer is none; all of them are false. Yet these false impressions persist in the minds of many, and misinformation like this produces a skeptical attitude toward the Bible.

“Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.” -Martin Luther

“Sola Scriptura Is the corner-stone of universal Protestantism; and on it Protestantism stands, or else it falls.” -B.B. Warfield

“The church throughout history has faced repeated attacks on the Bible from skeptics, but only in the 19th and 20th centuries have the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God’s Word been questioned, criticized, and abandoned by those within the body of Christ.” Carl Henry in his book God, Revelation, and Authority

“What is clear beyond doubt is that whereas in the nineteenth century the tendency of history was to cast doubt of the veracity of Judeo-Christian records and to undermine popular faith in God and His Son as presented in the Bible, in the twentieth century it has moved in quite the opposite direction, and there is no sign of the process coming to an end. It is not now the men of faith, it is the skeptics, who have reason to fear the course of discovery.11” Paul Johnson https://y-jesus.com/is-the-bible-historically-reliable/ Sola Scriptura means the bible alone is our FINAL authority. But not that it is our only authority. The creeds we believe they have authority in our lives as well right? Tradition does too. But only the Bible is a FINAL authority.

It also means it is our sufficient authority It provides all the truth we need for faith and practice. Belgic Confession 1561: “We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein.” Westminster Confession of Faith 1646: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Gal. 1:8-9; 2Thess 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17)

Sola Scriptura means that only Scripture, because it is God’s inspired Word, is our inerrant authority. The reason it is authoritative is that God is the divine Author. “Because God is speaking- and he is a God of truth, not error- His Word must be true and trustworthy in all that it addresses.” Matthew Barrett in God’s Word Alone “Should Scripture contain errors, it is unclear why we should trust Scripture as our supreme and final authority.” Matthew Barrett in God’s Word Alone

What we believe: Inerrancy: The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts Inspiration: It is inspired, that is to say it is God breathed or spoken out by God. Clarity: It is clear and understandable for the common man. 11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. Deut. 30:11-14 Sufficiency: It is sufficient. We don’t need more than God’s word Alone to be able to faithfully follow and know Jesus. (I would add that Scripture itself says that the Holy Spirit is our teacher and it’s the Holy Spirit that guides us into truth(John 14:26, 16:13). However the Holy Spirit will never guide us to do something that goes against God’s word) Authority: It is the Final authority in our lives.

This is what we believe. Why do we believe that? Is the Bible worthy of that kind of honor? My goal today is to prove to you that it is. Next week then I want to further define these terms and talk about some of the areas where the battle is taking place regarding how we view scripture.

The Internal Test: What does the Bible say about itself? 2. Early Christians believed that canonical books were self-authenticating Another authenticating factor was the internal qualities of each book. These books established themselves within the church through their internal qualities and uniqueness as depicting Christ and his saving work. The New Testament canon we possess is not due to the collusions of church leaders or the political authority of Constantine, but to the unique voice and tone possessed by these writings. https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/7-things-you- need-to-know-about-the-formation-of-the-new- testament#.W2S_1UaEXeU.twitter

This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored. A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe” (John 19:35; see also 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and held with our hands, concerning the Word of life … what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also …” (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).

(Also: 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter says that what Paul wrote is SCRIPTURE. 1Corinthians 15:16 These books were written while eyewitnesses were still alive. )

The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their Gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. (History would say that 10 of the 12 disciples died martyrs deaths. This is one of the most powerful witnesses to the truthworthiness of scripture. Who dies for a lie?) All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between AD 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke(LUKE HAS INCREDIBLE DETAIL IN HIS BOOKS. If he was lying that would have gotten him in trouble.) and the Book of Acts, Luke’s two-part masterpiece. Here is the prologue to the first of these:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4) http://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

Also, on several occasions Jesus and the apostles referred to the Scriptures as the authentic Word of God. Let’s look at just a few of them.

• Jesus rebuked Satan during his 40-day temptation in the wilderness by saying, “It is written….” Jesus was clearly referring to the Old Testament Scriptures since the New Testament had yet to be written.³ (Matthew 4) • Jesus affirmed the existence of many Old Testament figures including Adam and Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jonah, Daniel and David.

• Jesus said that the Scriptures referred to him.4 (Luke 4:17-21)

• In his prayer to his Father, Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth.”5 John 17:17

• The apostle Paul said, “All Scripture is inspired by God….”6 2 Timothy 3:15-17

• The apostle Peter said that God spoke through the prophets to us.7 2Peter 1:20-21 https://y-jesus.com/is-the-bible-historically-reliable/

Internal Evidence Test

Like good detectives, historians verify reliability by looking at internal clues. Such clues reveal motives of the authors and their willingness to disclose details and other features that could be verified. The key internal clues these scholars use to test for reliability are the following:

• consistency of eyewitness reports • details of names, places, and events • letters to individuals or small groups • features embarrassing to the authors • the presence of irrelevant or counterproductive material • lack of relevant material[14]

Consistency

Phony documents either leave out eyewitness reports or are inconsistent. So outright contradiction among the Gospels would prove that they contain errors. But at the same time, if each Gospel said exactly the same thing, it would raise suspicions of collusion. It would be like co-conspirators trying to agree on every detail of their scheme. Too much consistency is as doubtful as too little.

Eyewitnesses to a crime or an accident generally get the big events right but see it from different perspectives. Likewise, the four Gospels describe the events of Jesus’ life from different perspectives. Yet, regardless of these perspectives, Bible scholars are amazed at the consistency of their accounts and the clear picture of Jesus and his teaching they put together with their complementary reports. Details

Historians love details in a document because they make it easy to verify reliability. Paul’s letters are filled with details. And the Gospels abound with them. For example, both Luke’s Gospel and his Book of Acts were written to a nobleman named Theophilus, who was undoubtedly a well-known individual at the time.

If these writings had been mere inventions of the apostles, phony names, places, and events would have quickly been spotted by their enemies, the Jewish and Roman leaders. This would have become the Watergate of the first century. Yet many of the New Testament details have been proved true by independent verification. Classical historian Colin Hemer, for example, “identifies 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by Archaeological research.”[15]

In the previous few centuries, skeptical Bible scholars attacked both Luke’s authorship and its dating, asserting that it was written in the second century by an unknown author. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsey was convinced they were right, and he began to investigate. After extensive research, the archaeologist reversed his opinion. Ramsey conceded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank. … This author should be placed along with the very greatest historians. … Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.”[16]

Acts chronicles Paul’s missionary voyages, listing places he visited, people he saw, messages he delivered, and persecution he suffered. Could all these details have been faked? Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White wrote, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. … Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”[17]

From the Gospel accounts to Paul’s letters, the New Testament authors openly described details, even citing the names of individuals who were alive at the time. Historians have verified at least thirty of these names.[18] Letters To Small Groups

Most forged texts are from documents both general and public in nature, like this magazine article (no doubt countless forgeries are already circulating on the black market). Historical expert Louis Gottschalk notes that personal letters intended for small audiences have a high probability of being reliable.[19] Which category do the New Testament documents fall into?

Well, some of them were clearly intended to be circulated widely. Yet large portions of the New Testament consist of personal letters written to small groups and individuals. These documents, at least, would not be considered prime candidates for falsification. Embarrassing Features

Most writers don’t want to publicly embarrass themselves. Historians have therefore observed that documents containing embarrassing revelations about the authors are generally to be trusted. What did the New Testament authors say about themselves? Surprisingly, the authors of the New Testament presented themselves as all too frequently dimwitted, cowardly, and faithless. For example, consider Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus or the disciples’ arguments over which of them was the greatest—both stories recorded in the Gospels. As respect for the apostles was crucial in the early church, inclusion of this kind of material doesn’t make sense unless the apostles were reporting truthfully.[20]

In The Story of Civilization, Will Durant wrote about the apostles, “These men were hardly of the type that one would have chosen to remold the world. The Gospels realistically differentiate their characters, and honestly expose their faults.”[21] Counterproductive Or Irrelevant Material

The Gospels tell us that the empty tomb of Jesus was discovered by a woman, even though in Israel the testimony of women was considered to be virtually worthless and was not even admissible in court. Jesus’ mother and family are recorded as stating their belief that he had lost his mind. Some of Jesus’ final words on the cross are said to have been “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” And so goes the list of incidents recorded in the New Testament that are counterproductive if the intent of the author were anything but the accurate transmission of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Lack of Relevant Material

It is ironic (or perhaps logical) that few of the major issues facing the first-century church— the Gentile mission, spiritual gifts, baptism, leadership—were addressed directly in the recorded words of Jesus. If his followers were simply generating the material to encourage the growing church, it is inexplicable why they would not have made up instructions from Jesus on these issues. In one case, the apostle Paul flatly stated about a certain subject, “On this we have no teaching from the Lord.” https://y-jesus.com/wwrj/4-are-gospels-true/9/

Test of the Manuscripts themselves: When we read the books of the Bible are we reading what the books originally said? 3 tests: 1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Time Span !

Biblical archaeologist William Albright concluded on the basis of his research that all the New Testament books were written while most of the apostles were still alive. He wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book after about 80 A.D., two full generations before the date of between 130 and 150 A.D.given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.”[4] Elsewhere Albright put the writing of the entire New Testament at “very probably sometime between about 50 A.D. and 75 A.D.”[5]

The notoriously skeptical scholar John A. T. Robinson dates the New Testament earlier than even most conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament Robinson asserts that most of the New Testament was written between 40 A.D. and 65 A.D. That puts its writing as early as seven years after Christ lived.[6] If that is true, any historical errors would have been immediately exposed by both eyewitnesses and the enemies of Christianity. https://y- jesus.com/wwrj/4-are-gospels-true/4/

German critic Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) once contended that John’s Gospel was not written until about a.d. 160; therefore, it could not have been written by John. This, if true, would have not only undermined John’s writings but cast suspicion on the entire New Testament as well. But then, when a cache of New Testament papyri fragments were discovered in Egypt, among them was a fragment of the Gospel of John (specifically, P52: John 18:31-33) dated to roughly 25 years after John wrote the original.

Metzger explained, “Just as Robinson Crusoe, seeing but a single footprint in the sand, concluded that another human being, with two feet, was present on the island with him, so P52 [the label of the fragment] proves the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel during the first half of the second century in a provincial town along the Nile far removed from its traditional place of composition (Ephesus in Asia Minor).”[10] Find after find, archeology has unearthed copies of major portions of the New Testament dated to within 150 years of the originals.[11] https://y-jesus.com/wwrj/4-are-gospels-true/6/

Even critical scholar John A. T. Robinson has admitted, “The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world.”[12] Professor of law John Warwick Montgomery affirmed, “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”[13] https://y-jesus.com/wwrj/4-are-gospels-true/6/

! At the other end of the data pool are the quotations of the NT by church fathers. To date, more than one million quotations of the NT by the church fathers have been tabulated. These fathers come from as early as the late first century all the way to the middle ages. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/ What are the different kinds of variants, and how do they affect the meaning of the texts? The variants can be categorized into four kinds: • Spelling and nonsense readings • Changes that can’t be translated; synonyms • Meaningful variants that are not viable • Meaningful and viable variants

Let me briefly explain each of these. Spelling and nonsense readings are the vast majority, accounting for at least 75% of all variants. The most common variant is what’s called a movable nu— that’s an ‘n’ at the end of one word before another word that starts with a vowel. We see the same principle in English with the indefinite article: ‘a book,’ ‘an apple.’ These spelling differences are easy for scholars to detect. They really affect nothing. The second largest group, changes that can’t be translated and synonyms, also do not affect the meaning of the text. Frequently, the word order in the Greek text is changed from manuscript to manuscript. Yet the word order in Greek is very flexible. For the most part, the only difference is one of emphasis, not meaning. The third group is meaningful variants that are not viable. By ‘viable’ I mean a variant that can make a good case for reflecting the wording of the original text. This, the third largest group, even though it involves meaningful variants, has no credibility. For example, in Luke 6:22, the ESV reads, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” But one manuscript from the 10th/11th century (codex 2882) lacks the words “on account of the Son of Man.” That’s a very meaningful variant since it seems to say that a person is blessed when he is persecuted, regardless of his allegiance to Christ. Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier. The smallest category by far is the last category: meaningful and viable variants. These comprise less than 1% of all textual variants. Yet, even here, no cardinal belief is at stake. These variants do affect what a particular passage teaches, and thus what the Bible says in that place, but they do not jeopardize essential beliefs.https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/an-interview-with- daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/

External Evidence for NT: Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, a 19th Century English historian and prolific writer, held a pervasive anti-Biblical bias. He believed the historical accounts in the Book of Acts were written in the mid-2nd Century. Ramsay was skeptical of Luke’s authorship and the historicity of the Book of Acts, and he set out to prove his suspicions. He began a detailed study of the archaeological evidence, and eventually came to an illuminating conclusion: the historical and archaeological evidence supported Luke’s 1st Century authorship and historical reliability: “(There are) reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank” (Sir William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 4). Ramsay became convinced of Luke’s reliability based on the accurate description of historical events and settings. Ramsay wasn’t the only scholar to be impressed by Luke’s accuracy:

“One of the most remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned . . . Cyprus, for example, which was an imperial province until 22 BC, became a senatorial province in that year, and was therefore governed no longer by an imperial legate but by a proconsul. And so, when Paul and Barnabas arrived in Cyprus about AD 47, it was the proconsul Sergius Paullus whom they met . . .’ (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, p. 82). Luke’s narratives include detailed and specific descriptions related to the locations, people, offices and titles within the Roman Empire. In fact, many of Luke’s claims were eventually confirmed by archaeological discoveries:

Related to Quirinius Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary returned to Bethlehem because a Syrian governor named Quirinius was conducting a census (Luke 2:1–3). Archaeological discoveries in the nineteenth century revealed Quirinius (or someone with the same name) was also a proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC to the death of Herod. Quirinius’s name has been discovered on a coin from this period of time, and on the base of a statue erected in Pisidian Antioch. Related to Erastus In Romans 16:23, Paul wrote, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.” A piece of pavement was discovered in Corinth in 1929 confirming his existence. Related to Lysanias Luke described a tetrarch named Lysanias and wrote that this man reigned over Abilene when John the Baptist began his ministry (Luke 3:1). Two inscriptions have been discovered that mention Lysanias by name. One of these, dated from AD 14–37, identifies Lysanias as the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus. Related to Iconium In Acts 13:51, Luke described this city in Phyrigia. Some ancient writers (like Cicero) wrote that Iconium was located in Lycaonia, rather than Phyrigia, but a monument was discovered in 1910 that confirmed Iconium as a city in Phyrigia. Related to the Pool of Bethesda John wrote about the existence of a pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) and said that it was located in the region of Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, surrounded by five porticos. In 1888, archaeologists began excavating the area near St. Anne’s Church in Jerusalem and discovered the remains of the pool, complete with steps leading down from one side and five shallow porticos on another side. Related to Politarchs For many centuries, Luke was the only ancient writer to use the word Politarch to describe “rulers of the city.” Skeptics doubted that it was a legitimate Greek term until nineteen inscriptions were discovered. Five of these were in reference to Thessalonica (the very city in which Luke was claiming to have heard the term). Related to the Pool of Siloam John wrote about the “Pool of Siloam” (John 9:1–12) and described it as a place of ceremonial cleansing. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukrun excavated the pool and dated it from 100 BC to AD 100 (based on the features of the pool and coins found in the plaster). Related to Pontius Pilate For many years, the only corroboration we had for the existence of Pontius Pilate (the governor of Judea who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus) was a very brief citation by Tacitus. In 1961, however, a piece of limestone was discovered bearing an inscription with Pilate’s name. The inscription was discovered in Caesarea, a provincial capital during Pilate’s term (AD 26–36), and it describes a building dedication from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. Related to the Custom of Crucifixion While thousands of condemned criminals and war prisoners were reportedly executed in this manner, not a single one of them had ever been discovered in any archaeological site. In 1968, Vassilios Tzaferis found the first remains of a crucifixion victim, Yohanan Ben Ha’galgol, buried in a proper Jewish “kôkhîmtype” tomb. Related to Sergius Paulus In Acts 13, Luke identified Sergius Paulus, a proconsul in Paphos. Skeptics doubted the existence of this man and claimed that any leader of this area would be a “propraetor” rather than a proconsul. But an inscription was discovered at Soli in Cyprus that acknowledged Paulus and identified him as a proconsul. In addition to these archaeological discoveries, there are many other details recorded in the Book of Acts corroborating its historical accuracy. Luke describes features of the Roman world corroborated by other non-Christian historians:

Luke includes a correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)

Luke includes an accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)

Luke includes a correct depiction of invoking one’s roman citizenship, including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)

Luke includes a accurate description of being in Roman custody and the conditions of being imprisoned at one’s own expense (Acts 28:16 and Acts 28:30-31)

Archaeology is a discipline of “fractions”. Given the nature of archaeology, we shouldn’t expect to find corroboration for every claim of history, regardless of historic author. But in spite of the inherent difficulties and limitations of the discipline, the archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament is incredibly robust (refer to the Biblical Archaeology Society for additional evidence). As a detective, I’ve also come to respect and recognize the limits of corroborative evidence. Archaeology sufficiently corroborates the history of the New Testament, providing us with “remarkable tokens of (Luke’s) accuracy”. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology- corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/ What about the Old Testament: Jesus view of the OT: Matthew 5:17-19 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Quantity of the manuscripts: In the case of the Old Testament, there is a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel’s turbulent history. Additionally, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century AD, and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures. http://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible

Quality of Manuscripts

Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.

How was this done? Check out this short article:

Early in this millennium, scribes known as the Masoretes took over the meticulous job of copying the ancient Scriptures and transmitting them for later generations. They developed something now known as the Masoretic Text. These documents are still recognized as an incredibly trustworthy copy of the original Scriptures, and we’ve come to trust these texts based on the manner in which they were copied. To ensure the accuracy of the Masoretic copies, the Masoretes developed a number of strict measures to guarantee every new copy was a reliable reproduction of the original. They established tedious procedures to protect the text against changes: When copies of the Scripture started to wear, they were quickly removed from the collection and placed in a receptacle (called geniza) to separate them from the other, newer scrolls. When new copies were generated, the materials used by the Masoretes were strictly controlled, including the quality (and types) of inks and skins used to produce the scrolls. The condition of the room in which the copies were made was also tightly controlled, in addition to the cleanliness of the scribe. Only certain colors of ink were permissible.

The number of columns allowed to appear in each section was regulated, in addition to the length (48 to 60 lines), and the width of each column (no more than 30 letters). Nothing could be written from memory; each line to was to be copied letter for letter from a reliable predecessor.

When observable errors were recognized in the text (like those inadvertently made by a scribe or copyist) the error was marked and retained in the body of the text. The corrected word was placed in the margin, called qere, (meaning “to be read”). The word written in the text was labelled kethibh (meaning “to be written”). If a word was identified as incorrect (for grammatical, textual, or exegetical reasons), dots were placed above the word. This made the word easy to identify so it could be examined and corrected later.

Scribes and copyists also kept detailed statistics to guard against error. As an example, Leviticus 8:8 (in the Hebrew structure of the Bible) was identified as the middle verse of the Torah. A single word in Leviticus 10:16 was identified as the middle word of the Torah (called the darash) and a single letter in Leviticus 10:42 was identified as the middle letter of the Torah (called the waw). Any copy of the text could then be counted and assessed to make sure these verses, words and letters were still where they should be (at the center of the document). Scribes and copyists also listed important statistics at the end of each book. As an example, the total number of verses in Deuteronomy is 955, the total in the entire Torah is 5,845; the total number of words is 97, 856, and the total number of letters is 400,945. By assembling statistics such as these, each book could be measured mathematically to see if there were any copyist errors.

When manufacturers are concerned about quality control and consistency, they implement standardized production procedures (with safeguards) to ensure the quality of each product. If you want a reliable product, you’ve got to establish a reliable process. In a similar way, the ancient custodians of Scripture established important safeguards as part of a painstaking process to ensure the accurate transmission of the text. (For more information related to the transmission of the Old Testament, refer to Gleason Archer’s A Survey of Old Testament Introduction). http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/establishing-the-reliability-of-the-old- testament-a-trustworthy-process-of-transmission/

As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls predate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.

"The quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts." While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good—considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.

Time Span

Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at AD 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 BC to AD 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them. http://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

More about the Dead Sea Scrolls:

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran confirms their amazing ability. In 1947, a Bedouin herdsman found some unusual clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. The jars contained a number of scrolls revealing the religious beliefs of monastic farmers who lived in the valley from 150 BC to AD 70. When this group saw the Romans invade the region, they apparently put their cherished scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament, and most importantly, a complete copy of the book of Isaiah. This scroll was dated to approximately 100 BC; it was incredibly important to historians and textual experts because it was approximately one thousand years older than any Masoretic copy of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scroll version of Isaiah allowed scholars to compare the text over this period of time to see if copyists had been conscientious. Scholars were amazed by what they discovered. According to Gleason Archer (author of A Survey of Old Testament Introduction), a comparison of the Qumran manuscripts of Isaiah “proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.” Some of the 5 percent differences were simply a matter of spelling (like you might experience when using the word favor instead of favour). Some were grammatical differences (like the presence of the word and to connect two ideas or objects within a sentence). Finally, some were the addition of a word for the sake of clarity (like the addition of the Hebrew word for “light” to the end of verse 53:11, following “they shall see”). None of these grammatical variations changed the meaning of the text in any way. What compelled the ancient scribes to treat these documents with such precision and meticulous care? It was clearly their belief the documents themselves were sacred and given to them by God. The ancient Jewish scribes didn’t have access to photocopiers, microfiche, or digital imaging like modern police-department Records Divisions do, but they understood the importance of Divine record keeping, and they used the first-century equivalent in technology (the meticulous tradition of their Masoretes) to carefully guarantee the accuracy of the texts. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/establishing-the-reliability-of-the-old- testament-a-timely-test-of-transmission/

External Evidence for the OT:

The authors of the Bible make a variety of historical claims, and many of these claims are corroborated by archaeological evidence. For example, over fifty people mentioned in the Bible have now been confirmed through archaeological discoveries. While archaeology is notoriously partial and incomplete, it does offer us “touch point” verification of many Biblical claims, including the claims of the Old Testament. Here are just a few of the more impressive findings related to the Old Testament: Related to Belshazzar The existence of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was once doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon. If this is the case, Belshazzar would have been able to appoint Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” for reading the handwriting on the wall (as recorded in Daniel 5:16). This would have been the highest available position for Daniel. Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology. Related to David Skeptics once denied the existence of Kings David and Solomon, or believed them to be very minor tribal leaders, if they existed at all. In 1994, however, archaeologists discovered a stele (a monumental stone slab) near Tel Dan in Northern Israel. It dates to the ninth century before Jesus, and was apparently placed in this location to celebrate the victory of the Aramean king over the armies of Israel. Importantly, it bears an inscription which refers to the “House of David,” confirming the fact that David reigned and established a dynasty. Related to Hezekiah (and Possibly Isaiah) Archaeologists investigating the southern part of the wall surrounding Jerusalem’s Old City found a dump dated to the eighth century BC. It contained many clay imprints and seals, and one of these displayed the “Belonging to Hezekiah (son of) Ahaz king of Judah.” On an additional seal discovered at the site, archaeologists found an inscription that said, “Yesha ‘yah[u].” In Hebrew, this means, “YHWH is salvation,” but in English the name inscribed here is “Isaiah.” Some experts believe this is evidence of the Biblical prophet, Isaiah, given the close proximity of the two seals and the connection between Hezekiah and Isaiah in the Old Testament narrative. Related to the Hittites The historicity and cultural customs of the Patriarchs have been corroborated in clay tablets uncovered in the cities of Nuzi, Mari and Bogazkoy. Archaeological discoveries in these three cities have confirmed the existence of the Hittites. These findings also revealed an example of an ancient king with an incredible concentration of wealth. Prior to this discovery, skeptics doubted such ancient affluence was possible and considered the story of Solomon to be greatly exaggerated. This discovery provided an example of such a situation, however. Solomon’s prosperity is now considered to be entirely feasible. Related to Josiah’s Governors Archaeologists have discovered a well persevered seal impression that was made by the Governor of Jerusalem and dates to the 7th Century BC, during the reign of King Josiah. This is consistent with two references of governors in 2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 34. Experts aren’t sure if the governor who used the ancient seal was Joshua (as described in 2 Kings) or Maaseiah (as described in 2 Chronicles). Related to Nebo-Sarsekim There are thousands of “lesser known,” relatively unimportant characters in the Bible who would easily be overlooked if archeology did not continue to verify them. One such person is Nebo- Sarsekim. Nebo-Sarsekim is mentioned in the Bible in Chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah. According to Jeremiah, this man was Nebuchadnezzar II’s “chief officer” and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city. Many skeptics have doubted this claim, but in July of 2007, Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, discovered Nebo-Sarsekim’s name (Nabu-sharrussu-ukin) written on an Assyrian cuneiform tablet. This tablet was used as a receipt acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin’s payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in Babylon, and it described Nebo-Sarsekim as “the chief eunuch” of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. The tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 595BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem, once again verifying the dating and record of the Old Testament. Related to Nehemiah’s Wall Skeptical historians once doubted the historicity of Nehemiah’s account of the restoration of Jerusalem that is found in the Bible. Nehemiah lived during the period when Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, and he arrived in Jerusalem as governor in 445 BC. With the permission of the Persian king, he decided to rebuild and restore the city after the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians (which occurred a century earlier, in 586 BC). The Book of Nehemiah records the completion of this wall in just 52 days, and many historians did not believe this to be true, since the wall itself was never discovered. But in November of 2007, the remnants of the wall were uncovered in an archaeological excavation in Jerusalem’s ancient City of David, strengthening concurrent claims King David’s palace was also found at the site. Experts now agree that the wall has been discovered along with the palace. Once again, the Old Testament has been corroborated. Related to the Philistines Skeptics once doubted the existence of the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites. But we now have an early description of the Philistines, discovered on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, in Egypt. This structure is dated to approx. 1150BC, and the inscription found there describes the Philistines as “peoples of the sea.” The engraving also says the Philistines invaded the Delta area and the coastal region of Canaan, establishing a number of cities. Most of these cities have now been escavated and match their Biblical descriptions: Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron. Related to Sargon The historicity of the Assyrian king, Sargon (recorded in Isaiah 20:1) has also been confirmed, despite the fact his name was not seen in any non-Biblical record. Archeology again proved the Biblical account to be true when Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. More importantly, the event mentioned in Isaiah 20, Sargon’s capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls, confirming the history recorded in Old Testament Scripture. Fragments of a stela (an inscribed stone pillar) were also found at Ashdod. This stela was originally carved to memorialize the victory of Sargon. Archaeology is an ever-developing discipline, providing new insight into the past with every new discovery. Many of these findings are featured at the Biblical Archaeology Society and at other similar sources. The claims of Judaism and Christianity are more than proverbial insights; they are claims about the historic past. As such, they can be verified or falsified. Archaeology is one way we can test the claims of the Old and New Testament, and this discipline continues to provide “touch point” corroborative evidence affirming the claims of the Bible. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament- archaeological-corroboration/

External Evidence Conclusion:

The Old Testament has been shown to be historically reliable. Many times archaeology has confirmed the Old testament account. Not once has an archaeological find refuted the history recorded in the Bible.102 The only reason to reject the historical reliability of the Old Testament is an a priori bias against the possibility of God revealing Himself through propositional form, and, as has been shown, this bias is unwarranted. http://blog.instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/1997/05/25/old-testament- reliability/

Additional Reading and Sources for further study:

1.http://blog.instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/1997/05/25/old-testament- reliability/

2. http://kenboa.org/apologetics/how-accurate-is-the-bible/

3. https://y-jesus.com/is-the-bible-historically-reliable/

4. https://y-jesus.com/wwrj/4-are-gospels-true/9/

5. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/establishing-the-reliability-of-the-old- testament-a-trustworthy-process-of-transmission/

6. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-brief-sample-of-archaeology- corroborating-the-claims-of-the-new-testament/

7. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-brief-sample-of-old-testament- archaeological-corroboration/

8. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/unbelievable-four-simple-principles- to-determine-ancient-historical-reliability/