Can The Bible Be Trusted?

A genuine consideration of the question.

Can we trust the Bible?

Honest consideration of the question seems to entangle us in rival concepts: proof and persuasion. A host of statements are presented as facts, supported by this or that evidence to show the certainty of any number of conclusions.

One needs not read far into the Old Testament before being confronted by miraculous events, unnatural lifespans and a creation story written in a way that is unequivocally opposed to modern scientific theory. The reader is, at times, brought up to the top of a hill in the pitch black and pressed to the edge until all ten toes dangle over the abyss. A voice calls out saying there is a staircase before them. Another says no, there is a deadly drop.

The individual is left paralyzed, unsure if the next step might be the last. The metaphor darkens. Is believing taking the step off the hill, or does the step represent casting aside the age old superstitions of the ancient past? Is there a staircase, or not?

Set aside the Old Testament for a moment. Let's address the issue through the lens of the formation of the New Testament. This may provide us with the proper orientation when considering this very real, disorienting dilemma.

The earliest definitive list of the sixty six books found in the Old and New Testaments of today’s Protestant Bible comes to us in Athanasius’s 39th Festal letter, dated 367AD, more than a decade before the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage made any decree or declaration. Athanasius was the bishop of Alexandria at the time and spoke with considerable authority. This was not just some guy selecting random writings.

We can be sure this is not the first time the Bible was organized as we know it today, only that it could not have come to its present state after this point. We can also reasonably assume the writings we now call the New Testament were a significant part of the Christian world well before this time.

Prior to 367, the Second Epistle of Clement explicitly treats the “Gospels” as Scripture, quoting Jesus's words alongside passages from the Old Testament. Though the document is pseudonymous, not written by Clement of Rome, it is dated to around 150AD. The particulars are not as definitive as Athanasius’s list, but it does show reverence for the writings found in today's New Testament occurring within a century of the Apostles’ lives and ministry.

In 180AD, Irenaeus also quotes and references the four Gospels and many of the apostolic writings found in today's New Testament.

To add context, let's consider when the later books of the Bible were written. Jesus is supposed to have died around 33 AD, with most of the books of the New Testament being written over the next sixty to seventy years.

Here we find a bit of controversy. Some of these are also often considered pseudonymous. While these might be seen as forgeries, during this time, attributing a work to a teacher or authority wasn’t necessarily deception. It was often a way of acknowledging that the ideas flowed from that person’s teaching. This does, however, open the possibility of a much later date of authorship for some of the works. 2 Peter, for example, might have been written as late as 140AD, though if it were in fact written by Peter, its date would be much earlier, around 65AD. Some of Paul’s letters have the same muddiness to their origin, with a few dated around 100AD if written by another person, and in the mid 60’s if written by Paul.

Without as much controversy, Revelation and Jude are understood to be among the latest books written, around 100 AD even if by John and Jude, respectively.

So we have the life of Jesus ending in 33AD, his followers planting churches and spreading the message via their writings across the Roman world and beyond until the end of the first century. Then before 150AD and throughout the next century their writings came to be viewed as Scripture. Within another one to two hundred years, they were collected and used as authoritative texts in definitive lists that match what we have today, and are eventually canonized and affirmed at various councils by church leaders throughout the world.

We could now bring in any number of theories that challenge this series of events, but even if we let skeptical eyes rest, we are not free from uncertainty. It remains difficult to judge that timeline. Is that how things would have happened if everything in the New Testament were true and trustworthy? Is that how it would have happened if it were false or a collection of forgeries, misleading myths and exaggerations?

There is an argument for the plausibility that this timeline is what we would expect if the Bible can be trusted. There was no strong central authority during much of this time. There was no printing press for large scale distribution of the works. Definitive decrees by councils of bishops come after evidence that the works were already in widespread use, supporting the idea that these councils did not generate their rulings apart from the wider context or without precedent. Also, the early Christians who wrote and spread the writings which contained the message central to the New Testament, were often under severe persecution and traveling across great distances, another factor limiting the dispersion and development of the fixed Bible we have today. Considering these circumstances, from a historical perspective, we can reasonably say things developed at a fair rate.

Let's turn to the content itself and consider why certain documents were chosen or emphasized and others were not. Scholars have examined the writings of the Early Church Fathers, those who came after the apostles through the second, third and fourth centuries, and have identified four criteria a letter or piece of writing had to meet to be considered Scripture.

It must have been written by an apostle or someone close to them.

It must not contradict the understood orthodoxy of the faith.

It must be widely used in the churches.

It must bear the marks of the Holy Spirit.

The first three are more concrete standards and also help to support the view that these fathers did not dictate what was included in the New Testament, but rather reflected what was already happening among the early Christians. This lends to the trustworthiness of our present day Bible.

The final of these criteria, that it bears the mark of the Holy Spirit, is more nebulous. One of the most definitive statements which gave rise to this as a fundamental standard also comes from Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter. “These alone are the books in which the Holy Spirit has spoken.”

But what does that mean?

To understand how the concept was viewed and intended at the time, we can turn to another of Athanasius’s works. In On The Incarnation, he writes, “The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient in themselves for the proclamation of the truth. But whatever is not read from this source, even if it seems wise and beautiful, is not from the Holy Spirit.” There seems to be a stress here on being sufficient for proclamation of the truth, and less on the quality or inspirational force of the writing. The truth Athanasius refers to will become central to answering the question, “Can the Bible be trusted?”

On The Incarnation was written around 340AD, nearly two decades before the Festal Letter which explicitly listed the sixty six books. While we cannot definitively state the Scriptures he referred to here are the same sixty six books in his later list, we can at the very least conclude there was significant congruence.

All of this allows us to reasonably state that what we find in the modern day Bible aligns with the foundational teachings of Jesus, his apostles and the early church and therefore contain what Athanasius referred to as “the truth.”

But trust is more than historical plausibility.
Consider these two irreconcilable theses.

Either A: The writings of the New Testament were preserved with remarkable accuracy, circulating as Scripture within a lifetime or two of the events, but the resurrection could have been a legend, the miracles may have been exaggerated and the moral teachings might just be a happy accident of history.

Or B: The triune God who created and sustains all of existence entered history in the person of Jesus Christ and inspired this collection of writings through the Holy Spirit.

The first major point here to address is the myth of the neutral. A neutral position has become impossible.

Consider this analogy: If option B contained someone asking you to bring them a cup of coffee, and you show up with an empty cup, a cup of tea, or if you don't show up at all, you have not remained "neutral.” You have chosen Option A. Similarly, any stance that treats the resurrection claim as unnecessary, the miracles as legend, the Scriptures as merely human or attempts to withhold judgement, is not a neutral middle ground. It is a decisive vote for Option A.

A second snare on the path here is the unspoken assumption that Option A is the default setting of rational thought, while B is an add-on that must prove itself to an already sufficient picture of reality. Whoever begins with that presupposition will filter each piece of historical, philosophical, or experiential evidence through the lens that Christianity is the intruder and naturalism or some other non-Christian framework is the “home team." In reality, both A and B are total-worldview claims; neither is the neutral default, and no neutrality is possible between the two.

The question is, “Can the Bible be trusted?”
Well, it cannot be trusted or disregarded in a vacuum. The implications explode into all aspects of reality.

If the Bible can be trusted, then the central truth Athanasius referred to can be trusted. And if the central truth of the Bible can be trusted, then a specific, positive demand has been made of the individual. Micah 6:8 says it this way: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

Jesus's own words are recorded in Matthew 22:36-40: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

God's position at the center of the individual's life is integral to viewing the Bible as trustworthy or not.

Can the Bible be trusted?

You are back on the top of the hill, toes dangling. Your senses do not extend into this realm and you are being told to take a step.

The answer finally comes down to this: the Bible is asking for your whole life, not just your intellectual assent. It is not one more ancient book waiting to be judged by whatever standard you happen to bring to the table. It claims to be the word of God, the very standard by which every other claim, including your own, will finally be weighed.

The Bible is trustworthy, or it is not. The creator and sustainer of the Universe has spoken in these words, or He has not.

Can the Bible be trusted?

The question does not ask, “Have I seen enough evidence to give the Bible a passing grade?”

It asks, “Am I willing to let the God of this book become the center of my existence, or not?”

1959 words
Can The Bible Be Trusted?