Home > The Bible > On Bible Authenticity
On Bible Authenticity
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. — 2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV
There is no information more important to everyone’s future than God’s message of spiritual redemption in Jesus Christ, so it has always been important for Christians to defend the source of that message—the Bible—if and when its legitimacy is called into question.
In addressing the truth of God’s existence and the authenticity of scripture as His actual word, believers commonly appeal to human observation and reason because nonbelievers either refuse or lack the ability to contemplate spiritual and supernatural things. Engaging skeptics with rational arguments and observed evidence can sometimes help in introducing the gospel, but it is also important to remember that God’s word requires no human corroboration. An evangelizing Christian can share the word but he can do nothing to validate it. Whether accepted by the world at large or not, God's word is truth because God Himself is truth, and He will sovereignly apply it in the hearts of whom He chooses.
From our natural human perspective, all of the big questions about existence lack adequate answers. But even the routine, daily situations in our lives are beset by unknowns. There are always gaps in our knowledge, yet most people put their confidence in what they do know in order to move forward, trusting that things will work out. This is faith in practice, and it is not unusual for us to use it in our otherwise rational deductions in order to make the ends meet. To have faith in anything is to depend, at least to some degree, on facts we don’t know for certain. While the idea might conflict with our pride, the truth is that we all routinely turn to faith, whether we are religiously-minded or not.
This is particularly true when it comes to drawing conclusions about the big, cosmic issues. Regardless of what a person accepts as their standard of truth—whether it is a religious text, natural laws, scientific discoveries, logic, or whatever—their acceptance ultimately relies on faith. No one has perfect knowledge and comprehension, and we know human philosophy and collective experience fail to answer all questions. Faith is necessary to bridge the gap; otherwise we would never draw conclusions.
While the natural man excuses such a use of faith in many venues, he condemns the notion outright when it comes to spiritual matters. Why? Because in this area, human reason and observation cannot carry the load, and that fact offends human pride. The spiritual and the supernatural cannot be appraised on rational or empirical grounds—the natural sphere of human deduction—which is why the spiritual and the supernatural are so often rejected as nonsense by nonbelievers. However these are the very matters that the Bible addresses, and spiritual faith—itself the gift of God—is what enables a person to fully receive and respond to those truths.
While it is God alone who brings true comprehension of His word, He can and does employ human reason and observation when necessary in helping people to engage with it. The historical background of the Bible, for instance, can point up its authenticity in a way that a skeptic may initially connect with. This is what is attempted below, beginning with an explanation of what believers claim the Bible to be.
What the Bible is
Orthodox Christianity asserts that the Bible presents the complete written word of God through the essential testimony of His true prophets and apostles. Their testimony is relevant and required because of humanity's estranged status before God. At the dawn of human history, sin caused a critical incompatibility between man and God which prevented, and continues to prevent, a direct relationship with Him as we would understand it. God however, in the outworking of His sovereign purpose, condescended to communicate with mankind during various spans in history through human representatives. These appointed prophets, and later during the time of Jesus Christ, apostles, revealed essentials about God's nature, His expectations of humanity, the truth regarding past and future events, the reality of His unseen kingdom, and how man may ultimately be reconciled to Him in Christ. These messages were accepted by believers as authentic, God-breathed scripture, and were transcribed under inspiration—meaning that the writer was under the direct, supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit—rendering the content infallible and exactly what God intended.
Only God was capable of authoring scripture. No human institution can substantiate it or imbue it with any power. As the inspired word of God it is efficacious and authoritative on its own merits and entirely sufficient for man's spiritual development. That the Bible has arrived from antiquity in a written format is of particular significance; the transmission of authentic scripture to the present day has removed the necessity to rely on flawed human recollections of God's truth passed down and distorted with each generation, culture, and sect.
The supernatural issue
It has been said that God is a supernatural being who works supernaturally. It necessarily follows that the Bible documents numerous supernatural events, which presents difficulties for some. With many people, the ability to receive the Bible as truth comes down to whether or not they can accept the existence of the supernatural. The objective of this article is not to prove the reality of the spiritual realm or God’s existence as a transcendent supernatural being, but the reader is directed to a related article where a condensed version of the traditional cosmological argument is presented.
To believe that God exists is to believe in the supernatural, which potentially leads to believing the text that claims to be His inspired word. As the enabler of spiritual faith, God determines whether or not a person will be able to overcome their innate, experiential worldview to accept supernatural truths, and by extension, the miraculous events and unseen spiritual realities described in the Bible.
Historical reliability
The Bible provides the same form of proof—documented accounts—that people have always accepted in compiling and confirming history. With written history there is always a gap between the present day and past events in which error could be introduced. Because of that, the reliability of accounts from the distant past is usually established through probability, not total certainty. The overwhelming practice throughout history has been to accept the accounts of past events presented through chains of written documents that describe those events, having made reasonable efforts to substantiate the accuracy and source.
Historical knowledge exists entirely through recollection and documentation, and there is no guarantee that any record produced by people will be perfect. No matter the historical event, we are left to draw conclusions based on a belief that the account is trustworthy, accepting or rejecting it ultimately on faith because we cannot know with absolute certainty that it is perfectly accurate. The fact is that we were not present to witness the event, which applies to anything that happened before we were born. If a person rejects the Bible for instance, because of the uncertainty that originates from a lack of direct experience with the events, then they should be willing to reject any and everything else in mankind's historical record.
Most will agree that is not reasonable, but it does boil down to a significant probability issue for the Bible skeptic simply because the book documents miracles and other supernatural realities. It is not so much the general distrust of written histories, but an inability to accept the supernatural in principle that is their main obstacle to accepting the Bible as a reliable source. But there is no way around the fact that miracles routinely are the historical event being recorded in scripture.
To move forward, it may help to reduce the supernatural complaint to an examination of one particular event, upon which the entire question of biblical authenticity and authority can be settled, and that is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It should be stated that who a person believes Jesus is influences how they receive the written records of what He said and did. If they believe that He is the living God incarnate, then the resurrection and any other miracle associated with Him should be regarded plausible and consistent with its subject.
The resurrection account
The New Testament is the primary information source for the resurrection of Jesus, and it is a very early source. People generally agree that the crucifixion of Christ was to have taken place about 33 A.D. The writings comprising the current New Testament canon were nearly complete by approximately 100 A.D., with the majority of those already in circulation up to 40 years prior. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, c. 70-90 A.D.; Mark, c. 60-65 A.D.; and Luke/Acts, c. 60-85 A.D.), and to a lesser extent John’s gospel (c. 90-100 A.D.) were circulating at a time in which people were still alive who could have remembered the things Jesus said and did. To be accepted, these writings would have had to hold up against contemporary scrutiny, which they did due in no small part to the fact that literally thousands of people were eyewitnesses to many of the events described.
The earthly ministry of Jesus did not fly under the radar. As He traveled throughout Galilee and Judea, He attracted ever-increasing crowds. This was probably not as much due to the message He was preaching as it was to the miracles He was performing. People back then, just as they are now, were fascinated with the sensational, and many were witness to the things that were recorded. His trial and crucifixion were also public spectacles. The earliest gospel accounts—the same ones in the compiled New Testament we have today—would surely have been rejected and erased from history had they not aligned with the experiences of those who were actually there.
Arguably the most notable event recorded in the gospels, and for that matter in human history, is Jesus’s resurrection. Next to the incarnation it is also the most implausible by human standards, and even those who were alive at the time were challenged in their ability to believe what they had experienced. Yet the validity of the Christian faith
hinges entirely on the resurrection having happened.
That fact was not lost on the first of those who opposed it. It certainly would have benefitted the Roman and Jewish religious leaders of the day to disprove the resurrection, but they could not convincingly do so. Once the news got out, the first problem that had to be addressed was that the body had disappeared from the tomb. This was a reality that was not disputed by anyone at the time, as illustrated by the ruse the Sanhedrin concocted that the disciples had stolen the body.
As for those disciples however, the last thing they expected was an empty tomb (Jn 20:13, Lk 24:3-4, Lk 24:11-12, Lk 24:22-24). If for some reason the Romans or Jewish leadership had been motivated to remove the body, surely they would have produced it to completely demoralize His followers and quickly restore the local status quo. The fact is that there was no body for anyone to produce.
Then the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus began. While the precise moment of the resurrection had no direct eyewitness, the risen Christ appeared to many shortly thereafter, beginning with the women who had come to the tomb early on the third day. The first eyewitness of the risen Christ was a woman known as Mary Magdalene, who conversed briefly with Him yet was met with skepticism by the other disciples until they later saw Him with their own eyes. Other specific encounters recorded by the gospel writers include His appearances to the apostles and groups of disciples (Mt 28:16-17, Mk 16:14, Acts 1:9-11), the two on the Emmaus road, Peter, His half-brother James, and
a
large gathering of hundreds. For a period of forty days after the resurrection Jesus was not only seen, but communed with and provided instruction to His followers.
Prior to the crucifixion Jesus had been accepted by His disciples as the Messiah of the Old Testament. Consistent with the scripture they knew, the Messiah was expected to assume the throne of David and usher in God’s eternal kingdom on earth. His crucifixion, though it had been repeatedly explained to them as necessary for the progression of that kingdom, was a perceived disaster that challenged the disciples’ faith. Had the resurrection not happened, Jesus would not have been the Messiah He said He was and who they had believed Him to be. But because God had raised Jesus, He was confirmed as the true Messiah. Evidenced by the empty tomb and subsequent appearances of a risen Jesus for weeks afterward, the resurrection vindicated and galvanized the early Christian church.
In considering the plausibility of the gospel account, it should not be dismissed that the writers themselves insisted that the things they wrote down were true (1 Jn 1:1-4,
2 Pet 1:16-18). They recognized the incredible nature of the events and the challenge for people who were not eyewitnesses to believe what they would be reading. Luke in particular makes a point of explaining his attention to detail and desire for accuracy, and refers to other verifiable historical persons and events to corroborate the context and timeline.
This does not mean that the disciples and gospel writers did not have difficulty themselves processing and believing what had happened, and we see evidence of this in the text. Despite Jesus having predicted His resurrection a number of times when He was with them, His followers had trouble grasping it. Certainly the New Testament writers recorded the resurrection and Christ's other miracles because they were compelled to by the Holy Spirit, but they also wrote it down because they were truly amazed by the things that were happening, and their accounts reflect that sense of wonderment.
If these writers were trying to deceive people, one wonders about the motive. Societally the early church was on the outside looking in, and had no leverage to demand people's allegiance to its leaders or principles. They certainly had no power to declare untruths and have them blindly accepted. Additionally, a kingdom which comes
through tribulation does not naturally attract subjects, and if the aim of the first Christians was to start building and consolidating political power and influence, it is unlikely that this is the story and philosophy they would fabricate to do so. They would also probably have shown themselves in a much more positive light than the actual text does. The New Testament does not paint a flattering picture of the disciples and does not gloss over their faults, which included obtuseness and faithlessness. This objectivity only lends credibility to the writers as reliable historians.
Standing by their story came at a high cost. There was nothing material to gain from a deception and its defense, and everything to lose at the hands of an intolerant contemporary culture, yet members of the early church literally staked their lives on these accounts. Can convictions held so strongly be knowingly based on lies? It is very doubtful that people would have been willing martyrs for something they knew was a fraud. The writers of the gospels were convinced by the miraculous works and resurrection of Jesus, and their faith was clearly based on what they actually believed they had experienced.
The reliability of the New Testament’s account of the resurrection—based on eyewitness accounts—would seem to prove the reliability of everything else in scripture. If the gospel record convinces us of the resurrection, something that could only be achieved by the power of God, then should we not also be convinced that the balance of the New Testament represents His genuine word?
New Testament authentication and compilation
Historians have uncovered no evidence revealing a censorship of gospel texts in the early church. There simply was not an assortment of differing accounts vying for acceptance, at least not until church councils began making rulings centuries later. The only such documents dated with certainty to the first century are the ones that actually comprise the New Testament. It has been confirmed by scholarship that the entire New Testament was written within the lifetimes of people who personally knew Jesus, and all New Testament books were in circulation by 100 A.D. Writings that challenged these earliest, apostolic gospel accounts did not begin appearing until the late second century, and were rejected largely due to their non-apostolic origin or inclusion of heretical doctrine.
The vast majority of the New Testament was recognized as authoritative during the first century and the canon was largely established by this time. By 200 A.D. the 27 books of the New Testament we have today had been referenced individually by a number of early church leaders, apologists, and documents.1 The earliest evidence of an assembly of the canon was shortly after 100 A.D. with the compilation of the four gospels and the 13 Pauline epistles into respective collections. These were in time combined with the books of Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation, along with the later additions of Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, James, and Jude, which formally completed the canon before the end of the fifth century.2 Other corroborating or supplemental writings in circulation that were recognized by the church as uninspired were excluded.3
An important distinction related to the compilation of the New Testament is that the early church “received” texts as divinely inspired instead of choosing them; not all related writings were blindly accepted as authoritative. While the church did not write or establish the canon, it did acknowledge what writings were a part of it, using criteria which generally included:
Apostolic origin - had to be written by one of the original apostles of Jesus or one of their close associates, and thereby sanctioned by the apostle.
Date of origin - had to be written no later than the first century, as the apostles were gone by the second century.
Christocentric – had to be focused on the person and work of Jesus Christ, especially in relation to His redemptive work on the cross.
Orthodoxy - had to be consistent with existing scripture, in complete agreement with the teachings of Jesus, and display the hallmarks of divine inspiration.
Universal acceptance - had to have been widely accepted throughout the church as God-breathed and authoritative, not just in one sect or region.
Everything included in today’s New Testament satisfied these criteria at the time the writings originally circulated. Nothing else has been discovered that would have.
Transmission from the original writings
While the original autographs are believed to have been lost to history, more handwritten manuscript evidence exists for the Bible than for any other written work of antiquity. Thousands of ancient original language manuscript pages exist, particularly from the New Testament. Some of these contain entire books, some are partial, and others are just fragments. From this extensive collection of surviving evidence, despite some variances in parts of the text from document to document, scholars have been able to reconstruct what the originals said.
The Bible was originally written in languages that are today ancient and obsolete, and very few people today can claim anything approaching fluency. However these languages have been studied for hundreds of years, which allows for the possibility of accurate translations. There have been many different translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text, and these agree on the interpretations of the vast majority of words and phrases. Today there are a large number of major translations that agree on one essential meaning to the text, making discrepancies and the outlier versions with different meanings and deliberate mistranslations plainly recognizable.
In the evaluation of any ancient writing, time gaps that may be observed between manuscripts suggest an increased chance of inaccuracies. In the case of the Bible, the date gaps between individual manuscripts are quite short compared to that of other ancient works. This means that it was easier for copyists to reconstruct the text, and lends credibility to the assertion that the text was transferred accurately. A commonly used example for contrast is Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. Ten copies of the earliest manuscript are known to exist, and all date from approximately 900 A.D., roughly a thousand years after Caesar's lifetime. Despite this substantial corroboration gap and margin for error, Caesar’s authorship is not disputed today and the book's geographical and historical claims are widely referenced. There are many similar examples.4 In contrast, over 5,800 copies of New Testament manuscripts from the 15th century and earlier exist in just the ancient Greek alone. Nearly 40 of those date from the third century or earlier, with the oldest dated c. 125 A.D. That particular fragment is from John's gospel, which was completed by the apostle by 100 A.D. This is an amazingly short gap for a work of this age.
Textual variances within the Bible text tend to be concentrated in a few places rather than scattered throughout, and many of these appear in the form of plural vs. singular, differences in verb tense, the inclusion or absence of personal titles, an inverted word order, and so forth. Research has been published that painstakingly documents the most significant variances with analyses of each.5
Despite variations, the large number of surviving manuscripts has made it possible for Bible scholars to confidently determine the original message, and no doctrine of orthodox Christianity is substantiated alone by a questioned portion of the biblical text. Foundational principles are often the sum of several constituent passages, allowing for what scripture implies to be accurately interpreted and confirmed by what it explicitly states elsewhere. A great amount of the critical study within the past 200 years has focused on perceived inconsistencies in the text, yet all alleged contradictions and errors have at least one explanation. In each case, it is important to focus on the nature of the questioned selection. Does the apparent inconsistency appear in the context of doctrinal and essential claims? The answer is consistently no.
The Old Testament corroborated
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:17-19 NASB
The Old Testament chronicles the time period of roughly 4000 to 400 B.C. Authorship is traditionally attributed to the Hebrew prophets, beginning with Moses and extending through the time of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. While the issue of authorship has been debated in modern times, these traditional attributions have not been disproven.
The canon coalesced over time and was settled well before the birth of Jesus Christ. The earliest writings of the “law and prophets” were held as divinely inspired from the outset, and while the exact criteria are unknown, alignment with the Jewish Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), a prophetic/inspired origin, and acceptance by the people of God as authoritative would have to have been required.
Some groups have held that books traditionally referred to as the apocrypha are to be included in the Old Testament canon.6 These writings cover the intertestamental period between the last of the Old Testament prophets (c. 400 B.C.) and the emergence of John the Baptist. There were no prophets on the earth during the time period in which the apocrypha were written, so the writings cannot be validated as the genuine Word of God and are rejected in Protestant circles as uninspired.
Because of the extreme age of Old Testament scripture, archaeological evidence is relied upon in validating the places and events it describes. To this point there have been no archaeological discoveries that conclusively disprove the Old Testament account, while many of its details have been confirmed through archaeology. The process of corroboration has included comparing archaeological finds with the accounts of other ancient histories, the comparison of regional covenants/treaties of the time, the discovery and confirmed location of ancient cities referenced in the text, and events of the biblical record found to have external corroboration.7
The question of Old Testament legitimacy leads us back to the resurrection. If the gospel testimony compels us to conclude that the resurrection happened and thereby proves Jesus to be the Son of God, then His citation of Old Testament scripture as authoritative should unquestionably authenticate it. He cited it extensively in the gospel record, referring specifically to three OT collections—the law, the prophets, and the psalms—and quoted passages from 24 of the books. It is especially notable that He cites the written form specifically—all three times He responds to the temptations of Satan with the word of God, He begins with “It is written.”
The resurrection proved that Jesus was who He said He was: the incarnate God and standard of all truth. It is therefore His authoritative testimony that provides us with the most direct route to corroborating the Old Testament as the genuine word of God.
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;"— John 5:39 NASB
Accepting the written word of God
Scripture is the means through which God has chosen to reveal His message of redemption to humanity. Providentially compiled and preserved throughout the ages, the Bible we have today reflects the unchanging and eternal nature of God’s word. Its principles are not the products of man’s philosophical musings but the historically-chronicled revelations of the living God.
Yet, its classification as a religious work disqualifies it in the minds of some as a reliable source of truth. Secular culture, for reasons outlined previously, places unreasonable demands on “sacred” texts and raises the bar for acceptance continually out of reach. This is unfortunate, because if the New Testament were a secular work with the same corroborative evidence, it would have broad acceptance as a reliable historical source. The reality is that any case a person may make for the reliability of scripture, however cogent, will never overcome the bias of a nonbelieving critic. There comes a point, as with every other conclusion we draw without direct observation and experience, at which a person must turn to faith to draw the conclusion.
This article is offered as a brief, general survey of common issues addressed when considering the authenticity of the Bible from an analytical perspective. The reader is encouraged to research and study these issues independently to develop a greater understanding of scripture’s origin, compilation and preservation. While the Bible holds up under the evaluative methods typically used to substantiate other ancient historical writings, it is reiterated that God alone authenticates it and makes it authoritative as His inerrant, infallible written word.
Where rational human analysis reaches its limit is where spiritual faith begins, and God’s word is to be received by faith. May God grant it in the hearts of those who lack it, that they may receive His revealed word and find the narrow path that leads to life.
Endnotes
1 Among these include: the Didache (c. 50-70 A.D.); letter chronicling the Lyon persecutions (177 A.D.); Epistle of Barnabas; Clement of Rome; Justin Martyr; Polycarp; Papias of Hierapolis; Hermas of Dalmatia; Aristides of Athens; Athenagoras of Athens; Clement of Alexandria; Irenaeus; Hippolytus of Rome; Tertullian; Tatian of Adiabene; and Theophilus of Antioch. The Muratorian Fragment, dated approximately 170-175 A.D., contains the earliest known listing of NT books, and includes all but Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
2 The earliest authoritative listing of current NT writings appeared in 367 A.D. in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, the same listing being later confirmed at the Council of Damascaus, 383 AD, and Council of Carthage, 419 AD.
3 Books circulating in the first and second century rejected for inclusion in the NT canon included: Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, Preaching of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel According to the Egyptians, Gospel According to the Hebrews.
4 Among these include: Herodotus, The Histories (c. 430 B.C.) 9 early manuscripts, earliest c. 900-1000 A.D., Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (431-400 B.C.), 8 manuscripts, earliest c. 900 A.D.; Titus Livius, History of Rome (59 B.C - 17 A.D.), 35 manuscripts, earliest c. 300-400 A.D.; Tacitus, Histories (c. 100 A.D.), 5 manuscripts, earliest c. 800-900 A.D.; Tacitus, Annals (c. 100 A.D.), 12 manuscripts, earliest c. 1000-1100 A.D.; Appian of Alexandria, The Civil Wars (c. 150 A.D.), 5 manuscripts; Plutarch, Parallel Lives (c. 100 A.D.), 6 manuscripts, earliest c. 900 A.D.
5 Notably: Mill, John, Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (1707); Nestle, Eberhard and Aland, Kurt, Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) (1898); Fox, Adam, John Mill and Richard Bentley: A Study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 1675–1729 (1954); Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (1994); Robinson, Maurice A. and Pierpont, William G., The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (2005).
6 Intertestamental and other extra-biblical writings not included in the traditional Hebrew OT canon and not recognized as inspired scripture by Protestant denominations include: Jubilees, Enoch, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and additions to Esther and Daniel accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Asserting church tradition, Rome officially adopted apocryphal books as part of its recognized Old Testament canon at the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
7 Among these include: records of the Canaan conquests (various); lists of Israel’s kings (incl. David, Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehu, Joash, Uzziah, Menahem, Pekah, Ahaz, Hoshea, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Jehoiachin); annals of Assyrian kings; Assyrian limmu lists; the Cyrus Cylinder; confirmed existence of the Hittites; confirmed existence of Tiglath Pileser; discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls; extra-biblical flood accounts of Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt; flood-stratum discoveries; Nuzi tablets/Code of Hammurabi reflecting laws/customs appearing in the OT; the Babylonian Chronicle; the Tel Dan Stele; excavated biblical cities (Jericho, Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish); extra-biblical mentions of Israel and records of conquests/sieges of Israel (Shishak’s invasion/Temple of Amon; Merneptah Stele; Moabite Stone; Sennacherib Prism; Hezekiah’s Siloam tunnel inscription).
Bibliography and suggested reading
Bright, John; A History of Israel (2000, fourth edition)
Bruce, F.F.; The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943)
Gilbert, Greg; Why Trust the Bible? (2015)
Kaiser Jr., Walter C.; A History of Israel From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars (1998)
Keller, Werner; The Bible as History (1955)
Kitchen, K.A.; On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003)
Metzger, Bruce; The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (1987)
Oxford Society of Historical Theology; The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905)
Sproul, R.C.; Hath God Said? (lecture 2, “Authority and Authorship”)
Wallace, J. Warner; Cold Case Christianity (2013)
Wegner, Paul D.; The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (2005)
Westcott, B.F.; A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (1855)
Windle, Bryan; “The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts”; BibleArchaeologyReport.com (2019)
Associates for Biblical Research; BibleArchaeology.org
Scripture Alone • Faith Alone • Grace Alone • Christ Alone • To the Glory of God Alone
Most scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)
