Authenticity of the Bible: Bible as History
Confirmation from Historical Text
The Bible contains two main books, the Old Testament (Collection of 24 Hebrew books written between 1000 -165 BC) and the New Testament (Collection of 27 Greek letters written between 40-100 AD).
The earliest complete manuscript of the Old Testament is the Codex Babylonicus Petropalitanus, dated 1008 AD. Since this manuscript is over 1000 years older than the earliest copy of the Old Testament, many people question the accuracy of the manuscripts we have today with that of the first century. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has shed some light into this question. The Dead Sea scrolls were sealed in jars in 68 AD and discovered in Israel in 1947. One of the scrolls found was the book of Isaiah (one of the books in the Old Testament). When the scroll of Isaiah (dated 125 BC) was compared with the manuscripts we have today, only one word (three letters) was in question after a thousand years of transmission. Also, this word didn't significantly change the meaning of the passage. This demonstrates to accuracy of the Old Testament, even after 1000 years of transmission.
Today we have more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The New Testament is by far the most copied book in antiquity. John Warwick Montgomery once said "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all the classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."
Confirmation from Archaeology
A renowned Jewish archaeologist (Nelson Glueck) once said "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
Below are some discoveries from archaeology that has demonstrated the reliability of the Biblical narrative (information from christiananswers.net):
The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern
Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and
place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in
use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly
in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in
Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the
creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800
years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also
been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari. | |
The Hittites were once thought to be a
Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many
thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered
records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and
Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king
named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other
record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned
in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the
palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at
Ashdod itself. | |
Another king who was in doubt was
Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was
Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was
Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make
Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5: 16) for reading the
handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the
"eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the
discoveries of archaeology. |