How can anyone be certain of the Bible's meaning?

Adapted from lectures given August 2008, July 2012.

How can we know the Bible's original meaning? Even if the words spoken by Jesus and the Apostles are true, a big question remains, are these the same words we have today? Or have fanatics, secret councils, political agendas, and lax transmission changed them? How would we even know if they had?! These questions are fall under the topics of canonicity (the study of how were things accepted) and textual criticism (the study of accuracy of the text).

There are three big categories of concern when it comes to trusting the Bible: acceptance, transmission, and interpretation. We must be sure of how the books were accepted and whether that process was accurate. We must have some degree of confidence that what was originally written has been passed down faithfully to us. And we must have some idea about how to interpret what we have in a way that will arrive at the truth intended by the passages. Otherwise, we will have no confidence in what we know or assert from the Bible. Motivation for reading it will likely be reduced to historical curiosity.¹ These objections hinder people from reading the Bible and from taking it seriously.

Several specific objections can be cited:

1. The Bible is an ancient collection of writings. How do we know that the collection we have now is accurate to what was originally written? How do we know that it has not been compromised by political/religious/personal agendas over the course of time? Were other legitimate books left out?

2. The Bible is a translated text. Aside from learning the original languages how can we be sure of what it is saying?

3. Has the Bible been used to justify a variety of different ideas and events throughout history? Can it be used to justify anything you want? If so, isn't anything we pull out of it fairly meaningless?

Are the books in the Bible the ones that should be there?

For those who may not know, the Bible is not originally one book but actually 66 books written in three languages: Hebrew (almost all of the Old Testament), Aramaic (half of Daniel, two passages in Ezra), and Greek (all of the New Testament). It was written over a period of ~1600 years by over 40 authors. If we cannot trust what was accepted, it makes little difference how it was transmitted.

Not just any ancient religious book was accepted. During the Old Testament times, we know of many ancient Hebrew books that were not accepted such as the Book of Jasher or the Book of the Wars of the Lord. These books were around and known (several are referenced in the Bible), but never considered inspired. During the New Testament period, we know plenty of contemporary books that were never accepted, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul.

This may lead one to wonder, were any legitimate books excluded? There is a misconception that other books have been intentionally kept secret, for the purpose of suppressing their legitimacy. To even discuss the fact that a legitimate book has been excluded, one must have a criteria for what should be accepted. It is easy for sensationalists to exclaim something was left out, but they must present some standard of determining legitimacy to categorize this as an error. Several tests were used to determine a book’s biblical legitimacy:²

1. prophetic authorship (prophet: one who speaks what God says)
2. authority of the book (does it claim authority from God)
3. authenticity of the book (truthfulness)
4. acceptance by original audience

The first test is the key with the other tests being confirmations of the first. If the book was written by someone who spoke for God, then it was inspired, and the book should be accepted. A book that does not claim to be from God may not even be considered inspired by its author. Few authors claim divine inspiration (in the biblical sense). A book that is not authentic or truthful could not be from God, who does not lie (Titus 1:2). Acceptance by the original audience, who directly knew the author and the original content is very significant. Only a high degree of confidence would lead one to overrule those who interacted with the originals and were closest in time to the events. One should be wary of arrogance in later judgments removed from the events by millennia.

In the Old Testament, a continuous line of prophets starting with Moses determined prophetic authorship. Moses was clearly a spokesman from God. He did powerful works in Egypt and led an entire nation of slaves out from what may have been the most powerful nation on earth at the time. They were visibly protected and given God’s law, which became the heart of the Bible. He wrote the first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Moses said that others would carry on the work of speaking for God (Deuteronomy 18:15-19). After him there was a recognized succession of writing prophets from Joshua until Zechariah/Malachi, covering a period from 1400 BC to 400 BC. This idea is strange to us since we live outside the time of succession, like those before Moses, and those between Malachi and John the Baptist. But for 1000 years having a prophet or two around was the norm. This continuous succession explains things such as the recording of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34:5-8. How could Moses write about his own death? Joshua, the next writing prophet, wrote it. Note that he is even mentioned in the chapter as replacing Moses. Similarly, Joshua did not write Joshua 24:29-33, which records his own death; the prophet after him did.

For the New Testament, John the Baptist and the Old Testament pointed to Jesus and affirmed his legitimacy. The 12 Apostles were commissioned to speak on his behalf. Every event and fact was subjected to the apostles' teaching. They were the eyewitnesses who saw everything, heard everything, and were charged by Jesus himself to teach the truth. As John says in 1 John 1:3, "We proclaim what we’ve seen and heard."

Given rules for acceptance, one can determine whether a book is legitimate. The next question is, when were books accepted? Was it centuries later by councils, as many assert? No, books were accepted immediately by their audiences and then more slowly by secondary readers. We have evidence of immediate acceptance in Deuteronomy 31:24-26, where Moses places his own writings in the ark as a testimony from God. In Daniel 9:2, we read of Daniel's affirmation of Jeremiah, a book written not that long before. Peter cites his contemporary Paul's letters as scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16. By the end of the first century AD, we have references to fourteen New Testament books by early church fathers. By 150 AD, it is 24 out of 16, and by the end of the second century it is 26.³ While some theorize that the council of Jamnia (90 AD) set the canon, the abundance of evidence shows that this was a reiteration of the already accepted books, not an acceptance of them for the first time.⁴

Was there much debate over the books that were accepted?

Degree of Debate⁵

There was massive agreement on the majority of accepted books. For the Old Testament, disputes centered around interpretation, rather than authorship or truthfulness. Song of Solomon was thought to be too sexual, Ecclesiastes too cynical, and Proverbs too self-contradictory. Some thought that Ezekiel contradicted Mosaic passages. All of these concerns can be resolved, and were, with proper interpretation. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church until 1546 at the Council of Trent. It was widely rejected by the original audiences, early church fathers, scholars throughout time, and believers today. It is significant to note that out of 600 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, none are from the Apocrypha, while almost every other Old Testament book is cited.

For the New Testament, there was some concern with Hebrews (anonymity of the author), James (authorship, conflict with Pauline epistles), 2 Peter (different style from 1 Peter), 2 John (anonymity of the author, limited circulation), 3 John, Jude (references to books outside of the Bible), and Revelation (used by heretics). These were mostly due to limited communication across the Roman Empire. In the Old Syriac translation, all the books are present except 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Syriac was used in the eastern churches while those New Testament books were written in the west. The Old Latin translation, used by western churches, contains all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 1 & 2 Peter. Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter were written in the east. Books were immediately accepted by their original audiences but it took some time for them to be communicated across the vast Roman Empire to other churches. These books were tested for truthfulness by the early church. These were the people closest to the facts. One is assured by this debate that care was taken for the acceptance of each book.

How do we know that what we have now is trustworthy, accurate, and unchanged over the course of its transmission?

First, it should be noted that this is not a new question. There is a misconception that this question has only been asked by modern scholars, in the 20th century for instance, and that they have found significant difficulties with the text. This is not true. We have the work of Origen discussing the trustworthiness of the Old Testament of his day from 200 AD. Augustine also mentions people debating the trustworthiness of the Bible in his Confessions from 397-398 AD. This issue has been a concern for a long time and the scholarship has been largely consistent throughout.

So by what methods can we be sure that the text has been unchanged? How does textual criticism work?

First, one can use literary evidence (writing style, consistency, word usage, etc). Were the languages and words used at the time of writing or obviously inserted later and fake? For instance, if one reads the book of Isaiah and finds the word "helicopters" or a passage written in English, one could certainly conclude that these were inserted later. Helicopters and English did not exist at the original time of writing. This was probably scrawled in your Bible by a roommate. On the other hand, when we look at the Bible, we see things like the government letters cited in Ezra. The rest of the book is in Hebrew but the letters are in Aramaic. This fits as Ezra's audience spoke Hebrew but Aramaic was the language of government at the time. The Aramaic is fifth century BC Aramaic using governmental vocabulary. This is what one expects to see passed down from a fifth century BC book and is therefore trustworthy. We have copies of book after book of the Bible in ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Second, archaeological evidence is used by comparing ancient copies to modern ones and tracking the changes throughout time. With only two copies of a document, it would be possible to compare them and see differences. If one was older than the other, it is more likely that the differences in the second are not original than the differences in the first. If 99 out of 100 copies have a passage, this is strong evidence of the passage being original. If the 30 oldest copies do not contain a passage, this is evidence that it was added later. The more copies of a document, the more confidence there is at figuring out the original text. How many copies do we have of popular ancient documents?

Document Evidence⁶

The document evidence for the New Testament far exceeds any other ancient book. We have many copies and copies close to the originals, making it possible to determine what the originals said. On this evidence, it is estimated that the New Testament is 99.5% accurate to the originals.⁷

The most well-known version of the Bible is the King James Version of 1611 AD. It was translated into English from the Textus Receptus collection of manuscripts available in early 1500s AD. The Revised Version of 1901 used the Neutral Texts collection from 400s AD. Despite the long passage of time, these texts were remarkably similar to what King James used centuries before. Since 1900, many more ancient versions have been found, including papyrus pieces of almost every New Testament book. These copies are from 200 AD and at least one from 125 AD. When one considers that the originals were written between 50 and 95 AD, we see that this is extremely close to the original writings. A close comparison of these early versions with later ones shows things such as the following:

Again and again, it is seen that the ancient copies are almost identical to recent copies. Only a few minor differences exist, and none that affect theology in any significant way.

Ancient copies of the Old Testament are also in abundance. There are pieces of all of the Old Testament books (except Esther) from pre-Christian times. The ancient copies are nearly identical to copies today. The oldest scrolls from 100 BC are almost word for word identical to the texts used in 900 AD. This conclusively shows that Christians did not tamper with the Old Testament.⁸

Third, the transmission method can be analyzed. A common thought is that the Bible has been passed from person to person like a game of telephone. Writers such as Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion explicitly assert this. What this theory fails to account for is that telephone works the way it does based on a few rules: the transmission is oral, one has (usually very) limited opportunity to double check facts, and the participants are unconcerned with the message. None of these points hold true in biblical transmission. It was written. One can check writing as much as one wants while copying written text. And the participants were very concerned with the message. As noted above, the archaeological evidence also refutes the telephone game theory.

The evidence for the Bible being accurately transmitted is far greater than that of any other ancient book.

The Bible is a translated text. Aside from learning the original languages how can we be sure of what it is saying?

For English speakers, many versions of the Bible have been translated for us (so can we trust them?). First, it is important to get translations from good authorities. Find out, what organization did this translation? Is it recent and scholarly? Get one from the publisher that stresses faithfulness to the text and uses sound translation methods. Get a translation that is recent and able to take advantage of newer discoveries and scholarship. The King James Version was written in 1611 and the Revised in 1901. Both of these pre-date many discoveries which have unfolded since 1900 and since 1947. The Dead Sea Scrolls were so vast it has taken decades for them to be analyzed. It is better to use translations from the last thirty years for these reasons.

Second, one can use multiple translations to give a more robust view and balance. Do the translations agree? Are they similar or dissimilar? Comparisons of this nature can help you have a greater depth and closer accuracy to the original texts. It also helps to cancel out any bias or word choice decisions on the part of the translators.

Third, word studies can be done on the original words without becoming fluent in Greek or Hebrew. Differences in translation can often be understood by examining the possible range of a particular word. It is easy to find what the original word was in Hebrew or Greek, get a definition, and find where else it is used in scripture. Many great websites and books exist just for this purpose.⁹

We should not let this be an excuse to ignore the Bible. While learning the original languages would be useful, millions of Christians have understood the essentials of the Bible without doing so. Multiple translations, word studies, and other study tools can give one a high degree of confidence in the overall meaning.

Hasn't the Bible been used to justify a variety of different ideas and events throughout history? Can't it be used to justify anything you want?

It can be noted that the Bible has been used to justify a variety of conflicting positions. It has been cited for and against slavery, for and against equality of women, for many different interpretations of the end of time, and different interpretations of who Jesus was. It was used to encourage atrocities such as the Crusades. Many denominations and sects do not agree on specific theology, yet all point to it as their authority. How can we know who is right?

First, it must be exclaimed strongly that God made the main message very clear. The Bible uses clear language and repeats important themes, such as God loves us and wants to forgive us of the sinful things we have done. He does not want us to face the full consequences of our actions, but we will if we decide to go it alone and reject his help, then we will pay for our own choices. Another clear point is that a savior has come and is coming again, and his name is Jesus. He is the mediator between God and man. The result of sin is death and the price of forgiveness is blood. He has spilled his blood so that we do not have to spill ours. These points are clear and easy to understand from even superficial readings of the Bible. These points have massive agreement across denominations and sects. Most differences are more minor in scope.

However, there are several things that can be said regarding the differences one does see, and the fact that many non-orthodox groups disagree even with the main points of the Bible. First, there must be a good method of interpretation and diligence to use that method well. Many differences come from passages being taken out of context, poor studies, lack of attention to the original audience, or poor understanding of biblical themes. For example, one may cite Luke 14:26 where Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." One could try to use this to say that Jesus requires hatred of all close relationships to follow him. However, the context of the passage is counting the cost before becoming a disciple. The parable immediately beforehand in 14:15-24 is about those who make excuses and prioritize other things over following God. The one after, in 14:28-33, talks about endurance and making sure one follows through on their commitments. The literary style is hyperbole. If one naturally loves their family, they should love Jesus that much more (to the point that the previous love appears like hatred in comparison). This is actually the meaning of the Hebrew idiom used here. By saying that the family is hated when it is actually loved, the speaker is actually exaggerating the love for the second thing. In other places, Jesus upholds God's command to honor your father and mother (Matthew 15) so he cannot mean the literal sense of 'hate'. Failure to mind the context, or the goal of the passage on the original audience, can cause poor interpretations.

Other differences come from a lack of understanding of different literary styles, such as descriptive passages which give a historical account of what happened versus a didactic passage which is intended to teach or give instructions on living. A poetic passage would not be interpreted the same as a literal one. Uses of sarcasm, hyperbole, and allegory should be noted. Some interpreters are not careful in their method and so come to conclusions which are irrelevant.

When large differences are observed, often another authority has replaced the Bible. When another authority is introduced alongside, or in place of the Bible, the meaning of the Bible is often twisted to support the new authority's doctrines. This can happen in a variety of different ways and accounts for a substantial portion of disagreements:

• Religious traditions - When traditions, such as going to church, become ingrained, these traditions have the potential to take on a significance and authority of their own. For example, one could begin to feel that going to church is the basis of being right with God. The longer the tradition, typically the more unspoken authority it commands: This is what we have always done and so it must be the way it should be done! Unfortunately, many traditions have little biblical basis. Others had a strong biblical basis in the beginning but have since evolved to be contrary to what it teaches. The Bible warns of this situation, which God hates, saying, "The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men'" (Isaiah 29:13). Traditions can be nice. Routines can be useful for accomplishing good things. But man-made rules are not the authority.
• New "scriptures" - When other books are counted as scripture, such as the Book of Mormon or the Koran, these books influence the interpretation of the Bible since one must reconcile ideas and differences between them and the Bible (instead of allowing the Bible to stand on its own). Typically, this reconciliation is done by claiming the Bible is untrustworthy and has been corrupted. The Book of Mormon expands massively on the doctrine of the Bible. History and biblical passages are reinterpreted to line up with this new information about God. The Koran contains several of the same accounts as the Bible with with conflicting claims as to who participated in these events and what theological conclusions should be taken from them. In each case, biblical versions of the accounts, or certain interpretations, are thrown out to maintain consistency with the additional source.
• New "key" to interpretation - Instead of including new scripture, some groups offer definitive interpretive grids through which the Bible should be understood. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy is one such book used by the Church of Christ, Scientist. Eddy's view of scripture is taken to be the most informed and correct view, despite its variance with traditional or more straightforward interpretations. Divine Principle by Rev. Sun Moon, used by the Unification Church, is another such work. It instructs one to view the Bible through a blending of biblical and Eastern philosophies. Biblical themes are reinterpreted in an Eastern context instead of the original Hebrew context. These books also assert many themes foreign to the Bible entirely. Catholic Papal Infallibility and Canon Law are in danger of becoming similar interpretive grids on par with scripture.
• Non-biblical presuppositions - When reading the Bible, some do so with set presuppositions that are different than those that the Bible assumes. For instance, a philosophical naturalist, who believes that only physical material things exist, may read a passage out of the gospels and conclude, "This can't be talking about miracles because those don't exist" and so assert a different allegorical interpretation. Other presuppositions, such as moral relativism or pantheism, sway interpretations far from where they were intended to be by the authors.
• Non-biblical priorities - Wealth, land, and political power have been the goals of many people throughout history. While the Bible has been used to justify atrocities such as the crusades, the motivation behind these atrocities can be more easily understood given the priorities of those who perpetrated them.¹⁰ The pursuit of wealth and power has been the cause of numerous wars, regardless of philosophical outlook. The accumulation of vast wealth, despite biblical doctrines that wealth is a responsibility to give and greed is immoral, is unfortunately well documented. Those claiming to be the Church have sometimes acted far outside the principles of the Bible. The same could be said of other events, such as the Inquisition. Heresy against the Church was viewed as political sedition. Confusion between the roles of the Church and the state led to brutal enforcement of policy to retain political power. Not once does the New Testament instruct the Church to kill those who disagree with it. Relational disassociation is the strongest measure prescribed. The quest for political power and wealth is a better explanation than a faithful following of the Bible, when it comes to historical cases of political oppression.

In conclusion, we see that there is every reason to believe that we can trust the Bible. When it says things like: humanity is in trouble for the wrong it has done and every person needs God's forgiveness by Jesus' sacrifice, we know this is what we were meant to hear today. The legitimate books have been added and illegitimate ones left out. These books have been accurately transmitted throughout time. Objective interpretive rules exist to guide understanding while reading them.

We should read the Bible for ourselves. It is the most influential book in human history and we have the opportunity to understand it. It is shocking there is such disinterest in doing so. Perhaps some of this disinterest is due to the misconceptions above. We need not fear these objections. This is God's message to us!

Notes

1. Professor Bart Ehrman, a famous critic of biblical transmission and authorship extols studying the Bible for this very reason. While his books, such as Misquoting Jesus, strongly object to the canonicity and faithfulness of transmission argued above, these criticisms have been countered by Christian scholars. I personally was encouraged by Misquoting Jesus as none of his arguments were original or unanswerable. In fact, his objections were relatively minor in their final assessment as they are both well-known and do not impact any significant areas of theology.

2. Geisler, p. 67-70.

3. Geisler, p. 155.

4. For a good outline of the evidence in this area, see "The Canonicity Question" by Dennis McCallum: http://www.xenos.org/essays/canonicity-question.

5. Information from Geisler, chapter 10.

6. Adapted from Slick.

7. As mentioned in Slick. Geisler, Archer, and Harris agree.

8. Geisler points out that in the famous chapter, Isaiah 53, there is only a seventeen letter difference between the pre-Christian version (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the post-Christian era one (Masoretic). These seventeen letters are contained in 166 words. Ten letters are spelling differences of the same word in each. Four letters are stylistic changes. The Hebrew word for 'light' was added and accounts for the other three letters. This amazing prediction of Jesus was certainly untampered by Christians.

9. Some good study tools are:
Biblegateway.org - contains multiple searchable translations of the Bible that can be read in parallel.
Studylight.org - easy to use when finding the original Greek or Hebrew words with word definitions. It also has several good commentaries for free.
Www.blueletterbible.org - has a very easy to navigate concordance, allowing one to see every use of a particular word in the Bible.

10. Scholars also point out that the biblical teaching of loving ones enemies was omitted during this time. One cannot help but wonder why famous speeches of the period would leave out a point clearly emphasized by Christ, who died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). It makes sense if they left out this teaching because it conflicted with their ambitions.

References

Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1974.

DeLashmutt, Gary. "How Can Anyone Be Certain of the Bible's Meaning?" http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=854. 5 July 2012.

Geisler, Norman and William E. Nix. From God to Us: How We Got our Bible. 1974.

Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity. 1971.

"New Living Translation FAQ" http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/faqs.asp. 6 July 2012.

Slick, Matt. "Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability". http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence. 5 July 2012.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ, chapter 3 "The Documentary Evidence" and chapter 7 "Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence". 1998.