Can We Trust The Bible?
Crack The Code Series
June 11, 2006
Have many of you have seen the movie or read the book by now? How many of you are tired of hearing about it? How many of you are tired of hearing about Brad and AngelinaÕs baby?
Our experience at theater/big bag of Fritos behind us/shooshing/thought ÒThis is why Blockbuster was inventedÓ/next time – try bringing marshmallows
No movie has created as much spiritual conversation since ÒThe Passion of the Christ.Ó
It's a fascinating plot. Each character is of course fictional. Like many people, I dismissed concerns over the book's claims when it first came out citing the fact that it was just a novel.
I knew that this movie would create opportunities for spiritual conversation but didnÕt realize until I saw it how damaging it could be. It brings up obvious questions about the Church and its authenticity. As this book and movie continue to sweep through the culture, we want to set the record straight and also arm you with information that will show the difference between fact and fiction.
This morningÕs message may seem more like a classroom lecture than a Sunday morning sermon but the fascination with The DaVinci Code gives us a good reason to ask and answer some relevant questions. If you will indulge my lecture for a few minutes, I want to give you some facts and figures that answer some of these questions. Then I want to get very practical with you as we wrap up this series.
Dan Brown claims that his plot is built on historical truth. The first page of his book is titled "Fact." It ends with this claim: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" (p. 1). By "documents" he means the descriptions of the Bible and its origins, the Gnostic gospels, and other documents we'll discuss momentarily.
In interviews, Dan Brown has made clear that he believes what his novel claims: that Jesus was a man deified by Constantine; the Church covered up the real records; and orthodox Christian theology is founded on this deception. His book makes the case with authority, placing these assertions in the mouths of the Harvard professor (Robert Langdon) and his expert friend (Leigh Teabing). When Tom Clancy describes Jack Ryan on a submarine, we know Ryan to be a fictional character but we assume his description of the submarine to be accurate. It is the same with Brown's depiction of the historical "facts" behind the Christian gospel. It is difficult to tell in the novel where historical fact and fiction separate.
So, is the novel an accurate depiction of the history it claims to record? Remember that the book opens with the assertion that its depictions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate. Before we move to the subject of the day, let's consider a few minor problems with Dan BrownÕs story.
ItÕs Leonardo, not DaVinci - First, let's deal with the title of the book. Dan Brown's characters frequently refer to the artist as DaVinci. But his name was Leonardo. He was born outside Vinci, a village near Florence in central Italy. "DaVinci" simply means "from Vinci." And so art historians all call him "Leonardo," not "DaVinci." No Harvard symbologist (which, by the way, Kevin reminded us 2 weeks ago that there is no such thing as a Harvard symbologist) or art historian, real or fictional, would call him "DaVinci." This would be like calling Jesus of Nazareth, "of Nazareth."
Tarot Error – In the book, Brown states, "Originally, Tarot had been devised as a secret means to pass along ideologies banned by the Church. Now, Tarot's mystical qualities were passed on by modern fortune-tellers" (p. 92). The historical fact is that Tarot cards were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century. They did not become associated with the occult until the late 18th century.
Job Abuse - In one scene, Silas, the albino monk, encounters "Job 38:11." In the book, Brown writes, "It was only seven words. Confused, he read it again, sensing something had gone terribly wrong. The verse simply read: Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further" (p. 129). But the verse is not "only seven words." Here is the entire Scripture: "when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?"
No Noah the Albino - The book also describes Noah this way: "Noah of the Ark. An albino. Like you, he had skin white like an angel" (p. 167). Nowhere does the Bible describe Noah as an albino.
Uncle Joe? - And note that Leigh Teabing, the renowned historian in BrownÕs book and the one who makes most of the anti-Christian claims, describes Joseph of Arimathea as "Jesus' trusted uncle" (p. 255). But nothing in the Bible or early historical tradition suggests this connection.
This is just a sample of some of the errors or
embellishments found in The DaVinci Code.
They may seem like minor mishaps but they are evidence that you must be
careful not to allow fiction to become fact. But the real question for today is:
CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?
So letÕs talk about the trustworthiness of the Bible. Remember again that Dan Brown claims his depictions of documents to be accurate. We'll investigate this issue in three parts: the creation of the Bible, the trustworthiness of the Bible we possess today, and the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In the book, Leigh Teabing calls the creation of the Bible "The fundamental irony of Christianity!" and asserts, "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great" (p. 231). If this is true, the Bible we have today was produced by a process which occurred around AD 325. Keep the year AD 325 in your mind as we look at the actual facts.
The Old Testament was finalized by two councils held at the city of Jamnia, one in AD 90 and the other in AD 118. The actual books which compose our Old Testament were in wide use for centuries before, and in fact had been translated into Greek 200 years before these councils met. They in no sense "created" the Old Testament. They confirmed it. And they completed their work two centuries before Constantine.
Perhaps Teabing meant that Constantine created the New Testament? Here the facts are just as damaging to his case.
The early Christians quickly developed four criteria for accepting a book as Scripture.
4. The book must be approved by the decision of the larger church, not just a few advocates.
Here is how this process unfolded. In the first century, a number of books were produced in response to the ministry of Jesus. As an example, Peter told his readers, "[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Thus Peter considered Paul's writings to be "Scripture."
Other less reputable books began to appear as well. Among them was the Protoevangelion, purporting to supply details of the birth of Christ; two books on the infancy of Christ, one claiming to be written by Thomas; and the Gospel of Nicodemus, sometimes called the Acts of Pontius Pilate. However, by the mid-second century only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted universally by the church. The other "gospels" simply did not meet the four criteria for acceptance set out above.
This process was completed two centuries before Constantine. For example, in AD 115 Ignatius referred to the four gospels of our New Testament as "the gospel." In AD 155, Justin Martyr spoke of the authority of the gospels and called them the Òmemoirs of the apostles.Ó In AD 170, Tatian made a "harmony of the gospels" using only these four. Around AD 180, Irenaeus referred to the four gospels as firmly established in the church.
"In the early 200Õs, Origen (an early church leader) listed all the accepted books of the new Testament—a list that matches todayÕs (canon)." (Ralph Muncaster: A SkepticÕs Search For God, 235.)
How did this happen?
How did we settle on the 27 books of the New Testament?
- It was a response to heretics.
In A.D. 140 a heretic named Marcion developed a list of writings that he
promoted as authoritative scripture. They included writings that were obviously
opposed to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. So, the early church had to
offset his writings by listing what books were true writings.
- It was a response to persecution.
In A.D. 303, the Emperor Diocletian declared the destruction of all sacred
books of Christians. No one wanted to die for simply a religious book.
Christians needed to know which ones were real and which ones were not.
- They were upheld by the early church leaders, i.e., Polycarp (A.D. 115)
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) Ignatius (A.D. 50-115)
These early church leaders were able to define for the Christians of the day
what books were truly of the apostles and the early church and which were not.
All of these agreed upon the same 27 books that we have today.
F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible. His opinion should be considered:
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 27)
Next we turn to the trustworthiness and authenticity of the Bible as we have it today. Dan BrownÕs "historian" Teabing claims, "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. . . . Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned" (p. 234, emphasis his). Remember what we have already noted—that Constantine had nothing to do with a "new Bible."
Teabing's assertions grow even more damaging to orthodox Christianity: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book" (p. 231, emphasis his). Later he adds with a chuckle that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible (p. 256).
What are the facts behind his assertions?
Note what the Bible claims about itself. Jesus said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10.35). The author of Hebrews adds, "The word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb 4:12). And Paul concludes, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16).
But we might expect the Bible to claim to be the trustworthy word of God. Is there objective historical evidence for or against this assertion?
Consider first the manuscript evidence (known as the "bibliographic" test by scholars). No original manuscripts exist for any ancient book. Writing materials were too fragile to stand the passage of centuries. This is the case for Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, the writings of Buddha and the Koran just as much as it is for the Old and New Testaments.
However, we possess today some 5,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130. Quotations in the writings of early church fathers date to A.D. 100. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century; Revelation to the latter half. Complete volumes of the New Testament date to the 4th century. Note that all of these are before Constantine.
Now compare these manuscripts with other ancient documents. (Note table on sidescreens.) For Aristotle's works, we possess only five manuscripts of any one volume, none copied earlier than A.D. 1100 (14 centuries after the original). For comparison, PlatoÕs ÒRepublicÓ has 7 copies with 900 years between original and manuscript. Of Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have today only nine or ten good manuscripts, none copied earlier than 900 years after Caesar.
The number 2 book of all time in ancient manuscripts is ÒThe
IliadÓ by Homer. There are 643
copies that we have in our possession. The time frame between the original
manuscript and the earliest copy is 500 years.
The New Testament has over 25,000 copies or partial copies that we have found.
The earliest copy we have is 50 years from original manuscript.
History is overwhelmingly on the side of the authenticity of the New Testament.
Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original. Quoting F.F. Bruce again, "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."
This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors. When Teabing asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong.
We can also look at the evidence of archaeology. Archaeological discoveries have shown over and over again the consistency and accuracy of the Bible. Findings continue to confirm the geographical and historical veracity of the biblical texts. For instance, the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2ff) was once dismissed as historical fiction. Now archaeologists locate it in the northeast quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. IÕve been there.
Researchers have identified the remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of Jesus' trial and crucifixion. They have discovered the skeleton of Yohanan, a crucifixion victim from AD 70, and note that these remains confirm the details of Jesus' crucifixion as it is described in the gospels. Archaeological evidence strongly supports the trustworthiness of the biblical narratives.
Last, consider the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. When it comes to Messianic prophecy, Jesus Christ is batting 1000. At least 48 major Messianic prophecies can be identified in the Old Testament. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled each one. Endeavoring to determine the odds of such a phenomenon, mathematician Peter Stoner isolated eight of these 48 prophecies. He then calculated the odds that any one person might have fulfilled just 8 of 48.
Stoner determined those odds to be one in 10 to the 17th power (one followed by 17 zeroes). Visualize the number this way: take this number in silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas. They will cover the entire state, two feet deep. Now mark one of those silver dollars. Blindfold a man and tell him he can travel as far as he likes, but he must pick up one silver dollar. What are the chances he will pick the one you marked? The same odds that the prophets would have had of writing those eight prophecies and having them all fulfilled in one person.
Of course, billions of people across 20 centuries can attest to the fact that the teachings of the Bible have been proven true and authoritative in their personal lives. But even such overwhelming subjective evidence to the side, there is still outstanding evidential reason to believe that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God.
Let's consider one last area on this subject. Listen again to Dan BrownÕs character, Leigh Teabing: "Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. . . . The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base" (p. 234). Teabing later calls the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls "the earliest Christian records" (p. 245).
The Dead Sea Scrolls were actually found in 1947 and contain only the Old Testament. I have had the opportunity to see the Dead Sea Scrolls in Jerusalem and it is an awesome thing to witness. There is absolutely no New Testament document among them. They do not specifically mention Jesus Christ. They have nothing to do with any agenda to "promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ."
The Coptic Scrolls at Nag Hammadi mentioned in the book are not "the earliest Christian records," either. We possess quotations and biblical copies which are much older than them. And they are definitely not "Christian" records.
Conclusion
The DaVinci Code claims its depictions of documents to be accurate but the assertions regarding the creation of the Bible, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and early "Christian" records cannot stand the scrutiny of historical and archaeological investigation. The more we know about the facts behind the biblical text, the more we see that the Bible is what it claims to be: the written word of God.
This has been a very academic approach this morning. Lots of facts and figures. The truth is that if we are going to say we believe this book and that we are going to live by this book we should know that we can count on the fact that this book is valid and relevant to our everyday lives.
This book and movie have obviously caused quite a stir in our culture. It has raised a lot questions and itÕs been good ammunition for skeptics, cynics, and critics of Christianity. Many people have read the book or watched the movie and asked, ÒWhat if?Ó What if there is truth to this? What if Jesus was manufactured into a Savior by Constantine? What if he was just another nice guy? What if he was just another great prophet and teacher? What if he is not the Messiah?
You can ask those questions and I would encourage you to ask. But I can promise you this, when you come face to face with who Jesus is you will not be the same É.ever. I, along with many people in this room and millions who have lived before us will tell you that life is found in Jesus Christ.
Colossians 2:17 says that Òreality is found in Jesus Christ.Ó
ItÕs okay to ask ÒWhat if.Ó Just be sure to get complete answers. Because I believe that if when you really see who Jesus is youÕll discover that he is more than enough.
Song – ÒWhat If?Ó
BethÕs letters to me when she was at GWC. Before email. Post office box. My excitement because I knew it was a love letter.
The Bible is GodÕs love letter to you. Read it. Get to know it. Discover the amazing grace and love we have in Christ. THEN live by it.
(Thanks to a former professor, Jim Denison, for much of the facts and figures in this message.)