An mp3 of this talk can be downloaded from the Bethany City Church website here
The Bible: fact or fiction?
Luke’s prologue
One of the most frequent objections you will meet why people don’t give any credence or weight to the Christian message is that they consider the Bible to be unreliable and inaccurate. But is this true? Bible: fact or fiction?
But in an investigation seeking to answer this question, where do we start when we are talking about 66 books gathered over 2000 years?
We could start by rooting around in archaeological books or websites. We could speak to experts in Old Testament Hebrew or Greek, and we might begin, just begin to scratch the surface.
But there is a way in to this subject that cuts the whole question right open. Let’s consider the most outrageous claims the Bible makes, ask if there is any good reason why we should trust that they are true and then work backwards.
So, we jump to the end of Luke’s gospel. Jesus has lived, died and been buried. These facts are well attested in historical documents, whether Christian or non-Christian (those that have no claims or reason to be positive towards Christianity).
Luke, a first century doctor writes these words.
‘Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.
“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Luke 24v36-39
Now, we don’t have time to examine the specific evidence for the resurrection now – but we are going to think about Luke’s claim that this happened. Christians believe that the outrageous claims of the death and resurrection as recorded by Luke and the other gospels are the central pillars on which Christianity stands. This therefore may lead to 2 objections.
- What we have in the New Testament is not what was originally written.
- How do we know what was originally written was true and accurate?
We will be considering the Bible and New Testament in general, but specifically the gospel of Luke. So...
How do we know that what we have is what was originally written?
Surely, what Luke and the other gospel writers wrote has been changed over the last 2000 so that what we have today is not recognisable as what was written in the 1st Century?
This is indeed the accusation made of Christians by many groups, including both Muslims and Mormons. But is there any truth in it?
Historical evidence (as well as biblical evidence, as we shall see) shows us that the gospels were all written within living memory of Jesus, between 30 and 60 years of his death.
This means there are, briefly, 3 reasons why we can be confident that what we have in Luke’s gospel (or any of the others) is an accurate record of what happened in the first century.
Firstly, the number of manuscripts we have (which is what we call a fragment of text, a larger piece of writing, whole book or even the whole NT) indicates that what we have is accurate, rather than a poor, distorted copy.
For example, compare the NT documents with other ancient documents.
Pliny the younger was a historian, writing at the same time as the gospel writers. We have 7 copies of what he wrote, one for each day of the week.
Or Aristotle who wrote 3-400 years before Jesus. We have enough manuscripts to read a different one every day, starting today and finishing in 7 weeks time(49 copies)
Both these 2 writers material is accepted as true, accurate and reliable.
Compare this to the NT documents. If we started to read the NT manuscripts, one each day starting today (as I write, the 21st March 2010) you would be here until 14th November 2023 – (5000 manuscripts)
This weight of manuscripts suggests that we are not talking about one or two rouge texts that really ought to be discarded. This is significant stuff.
But more than that...
The earliest date for a copy of Pliny the younger’s work we have is from 750 years after he wrote it. The earliest we have of Aristotle is 1400 years after. But, the earliest we have of the NT is only about 35 years after it was written, (125AD – the Rylands fragment, from Johns gospel, originally written around 90AD). We also have major sections within 100-200 years and a 5 complete NT within 200-300 years.
Within this, any disputable sections, verses or words are recorded in the footnotes of the Bible so as to be above reproach, and not guess what was originally written.
This is amazing reliable stuff. We can trust, with confidence that what we have today is what was written by Luke’s own hand. This leads us to our second question.
How do we know that when Luke sat down to write his gospel, what he wrote was true?
Luke’s account – fact or fiction?
To answer our first question we are going to look at the first 4 verses of Luke’s gospel. This is, if you like his reason for writing, and his explanation of how he has come to write what he has written.
‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.’ Luke 1v1-4 (NIV)
Why did Luke write?
The first generation of the church was the apostles and others, many people who had known Jesus personally. They didn’t need books to tell them about him because their own memories, thoughts and hearts had experienced him and his life, death and resurrection. And when they taught others about Jesus, they didn’t have some rigid formula or list of official teachings they taught from. They didn’t need them. A very early church historian called ‘Papias’ wrote that Peter
‘used to adapt his instructions to the needs [of the moment], but not with a view to putting together [his thoughts] in orderly fashion.’[1]
The next generation was in a different position. The ‘eyewitnesses’ were beginning to die. The things were still ‘fulfilled among us’, within that broad generation, but the stories and message of Jesus was now ‘handed down’ from one person to the next, from one generation to the next. So, for their own benefit – and for the benefit of subsequent generations, like dominoes down through history including you and I, they saw fit to write these things down. In fact, notice that Luke comments that many were starting to do just that – writing down the accounts of the important stories, miracles, teachings and incidents in the life of Jesus.
What did Luke write?
So Luke wrote down what was handed down to them by those who both ‘saw’ and ‘experienced’ what happened, and had therefore told others; the reports circulating from the early disciples who were eye witnesses.
In the 21st Century, I think the common view of the New Testament is of a document put together by men who, years after the event, distantly removed from the real people and places wrote down stories for gullible people to follow. But here Luke is very clear; what he has written down is what those who were there had seen and said.
It is a little like the significant television series ‘Band of Brothers’. At the beginning of each episode there is an interview with the individuals upon whom the series is based. They are speaking to a camera, telling you what actually happened that is then depicted in the episode. These were the people who were there, who saw and experienced the horrors of D-day, telling other. I think, if Luke had a camera, he would have done the same.
As Greek scholars and historians around the world agree – Luke’s account is a remarkable piece of work. The Greek, even in just these first 4 verses is some of the finest in ancient Greek literature. Luke, himself a doctor, was an educated man with a real attention to detail. Luke records many historical details that, for years, historians and archaeologists thought cast doubt on his gospel. But the more that has been discovered of the figures and history of the day, the more Luke has been confirmed in his accuracy and truthfulness. And this is important when we consider how he wrote what he wrote.
How did Luke write?
Luke’s work is well researched and thorough, carefully prepared and accurate, ordered and structured.
Look at what he did with his research. He was thorough, carefully investigating everything from the beginning (probably referring to the beginning of the life and ministry of Jesus.)
He is thorough. He didn’t want to miss stuff of importance, and didn’t want to include stuff of which there was any doubt of its veracity or truth. Because the message is all important, Luke considers his research all important too!
It must be accurate. As well as investigating everything, his investigation is careful. The word careful has a sense of ‘exactness’, or accuracy to it. As we mentioned earlier, time and time again the truth he has spoken of has been proved archaeologically, and historically to be accurate. And a writer who doesn’t put a foot wrong in things that can be verified surely creates an extremely strong case as to why we should listen to him on everything else.
And he does it with ‘order’. It is an orderly account, structured with a purpose. This is important. It is not just a record of what happened. Luke has ordered it in a certain way deliberately.
Ancient Library
If you were to wander into the first century library in ancient Alexandria and try and find Luke’s Gospel, where would you look? In which section would you expect to find it?
The problem is, like most modern books it doesn’t have a label ‘novel’ or ‘autobiography’ written on it. Which section would you find it in?
You would probably look in one of three sections. Firstly, you might look in the ‘Acts’ section.
These books give accounts of great historical figures and their deeds and might be a good place to look. But Luke has a lot of teaching about Jesus too, which doesn’t really fit with an ‘Act’ where the action is the important bit. It is a bit like confusing James bond with a French art film...
So, we might look in the ‘Memoirs’ section.
These were collections of individual stories about, or sayings of a person. Again, the problem is, Luke’s account contains lots of action, and spends ages talking about Jesus death. That doesn’t fit the genre...
The third section you might look in is the ‘Lives’ section.
A first century writer of ‘Lives’ called Plutarch said that
‘as painters produce a likeness by the representation of the countenance and the expression of the face, in which the character is revealed...so I must be allowed to look rather into the signs of a man’s character, and by means of these to portray the life of each leaving to others the descriptions of great events and battles.’[2]
In other words, a ‘Life’ focussed on the person, rather than the acts or events and was written to provide an example or model by highlighting the person and their character. So, Plutarch chose the material he included to draw his readers attention to these things.
It seems likely that when Luke wrote his orderly account, this was what he was doing. He was highlighting the central figure, Jesus, in an orderly way because it was all about him. Luke orders his account. He doesn’t need in include everything and doesn’t necessarily need to put it all in chronological order as he writes with a purpose. So the question is, do we get the purpose of writing?
Luke’s purpose in writing
As we have just said, Luke has a purpose in writing. It is not just a chronological record of Jesus life, death and resurrection. All he says is true, accurate, researched and included in an orderly way so that we might be introduced to the real Jesus, to why he came and what he came to do.
Just look again at v4.
Luke writes to Theophilus so that ‘You may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.’
Luke writes so that we may be sure, certain about Jesus. The word he uses could actually be translated ‘infallible’. In other words, what he writes is sure, certain, trustworthy, accurate. He is saying read what I have written and you will see the facts on which the Christian faith is based and you will find truth that is firm, solid and absolutely trustworthy. He doesn’t skirt round the issues.
And he also says, you can ‘know’ it. This knowledge can be yours. By reading and understanding the person of Jesus you can know the truth. And that truth will set you free.
Luke presents a good, strong case for his own gospel. Which leaves you and I with a question. What do you make of the Jesus of the Bible? You can’t just rubbish it as a myth. People who do that (and there are many, and they are very vocal) have not wrestled with the evidence. You can’t just rubbish Jesus as a good teacher. Again, there are many and they are vocal, whether they are liberal Christians, The Jesus Seminar theologians are just plain agnostics and atheists who have attempted to reduce him to a nice guy of influence But we can’t leave him at that.
What do you make of the evidence of what he said and did?
Come may say, ‘you have given evidence to support just 4 books out of 66. That is not good.’
Well, if Jesus was the figure that Luke claimed him to be, both man and God, then his view of the Bible should be heard because if he is God then he should know. Jesus taught of its authority and authenticated its reliability as he looked back to the Old Testament. He also was the person who prepared those people who God inspired to write the New Testament documents.
What do you make of Jesus?
And so we are left with a question. What do you make of Jesus?
When he says
“I will be rejected by the leaders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. I will be killed, but three days later I will be raised from the dead.” Luke 9v22
You can’t just sit on the fence...
And when he says he did it for you. He did it because each one of us, left to our own devices live lives alienated from God, living lives for ourselves, cut off from God by our own rebellion (which the bible calls sin). And he did it in our place. He took the punishment for your and my rebellion when he died on the cross.
When I look at the cross of Jesus, it should have been me. It should have been you!
And he was raised to new life so that I might have a new life by putting my trust in him...
So, considering the evidence, what do you make of him?
[1] Papias, quoted in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, III. 39; J Stevenson, A New Eusebius (SPCK, 1992), p49
[2] Alexander 1.1