Historical Accuracy of the Bible
From BibleWiki
The Bible claims to be a factual and historical book, therefore it can be evaluated using a similar process to what is used on other historical documents.
If you have any concerns about what is written here, please post it to the talk page, so that it can be evaluated and addressed in the Criticisms section below. If you have any additional evidence, please include it below.
[edit] Historical Evaluation
[edit] Is the source a primary or secondary source?
In simple terms, a primary source is a source based on direct knowledge of an event, such as an eyewitness account or interview of people involved. A secondary source is a source based off of a primary source.
Clearly, a primary source is a more reliable source, since it contains first-hand information. The Bible is a primary source, because the men who wrote it either witnessed the events, or interviewed those who had.
[edit] Was the document written close to the time of the events described?
Over time, people's memory of an event becomes fuzzy or exaggerated, so the closer to the event an account is written, the more accurate it is likely to be.
Most of the New Testament was written within 30-70 years of the events proclaimed in it. The earliest books are likely to be the first three Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, Hebrews, James, and Peter's Epistles were written in the period between about 50–65 AD, and the Gospel of John, John's Epistles, Jude, and Revelation were written between about 85–100 AD.
[edit] How well where the manuscripts preserved?
This refers to how many errors has crept into the text between it's first writing, and the current version. Fortunately, the Bible was the most copied book in all of history, and we have over 13,000 manuscripts of it. The only changes that have crept in over time where spelling and grammar changes, none of which change the overall meaning of the text.
[edit] Are the authors credible reporters of the facts?
The question refers to the credentials of those who wrote the documents. Many people believe that fisherman and shepherds wrote the New Testament. However this is not the case. In the time of the writing of the Bible, the common man was uneducated and could not read or write.
- Mathew was a tax collector, meaning he was educated and had accounting knowledge.
- Luke was a physician and wealthy and wrote the most historically descriptive account.
- Mark was the son of a wealthy land owner and was well educated.
- John was a fisherman, but a small business owner, and could read and write three languages.
- Paul was a highly educated man and religious expert. Interestingly, Paul had been a persecutor of Christians, and then was converted and wrote a large portion of the new Testament.
[edit] Do other documents concur with the facts and events presented?
The four gospel accounts do agree with each other, although being written for different audiences (Mathew wrote to Jews, Luke wrote as a historic account), and for different purposes, thereby including slightly different accounts. Many of the events are described in several of the books, and they all agree. Other historical text also agree as well.
[edit] Do those who would not benefit or would have from the events admit they happened?
Paul is a great example here, since he was originally a Jew and staunch enemy of Christians. Yet, Paul went on to acknowledge the events and wrote more of the books of the NT than any other author.
[edit] Is there archeological evidence confirming the documentary record?
Archeological evidence exists to back up a lot of events in the Bible.
[edit] Additional Criticisms
[edit] The events of the Bible were an elaborate hoax, created up by the men who wrote it.
The Bible as a whole was written over a 1100 year period. The original authors never knew the authors of the NT and therefore could not have ever collaborated with them. Also, many events in the Bible are verifiable by outside sources.
In addition, many of these man where killed in horrific ways for what they believed. No man would willingly die for something they knew was a hoax, so all of them definitely believed it. The only options left are that what they wrote was true or they were insane.
If they were insane, then every single writer of the Bible had to go insane together, and still come up with a document that is consistent and is at least partially historically accurate.
[edit] Jesus was not God but a great teacher
This is not true, because Jesus stated on many occasions that he was God. The only possible outcomes of evaluating that claim are that he is God, or that he isn't God. If he's not God, then he would have had to be insane; no one goes around claiming to be God and receives any respect unless they prove that claim.
