One of the better books I've read about the Bible's trustworthiness, covering historical reliability of gospels, apparent contradictions, canon, textual criticism, translation, and historical reliability of Old Testament (OT). Each section starts shallow and dives deeper, so it's appropriate for readers who are new to these topics, and those already familiar with them.
Mounce defends the historicity of the Bible, but he backs away from defending some numbers in the Bible, claiming that some may be symbolic (e.g., the many instances of "40 days"). He says numbers in the OT may be "numerical hyperbole" (exaggeration), because that was common in ancient literature in countries surrounding Israel, and the numbers in OT are larger than those recorded in ancient literature in countries surrounding Israel. He says the lifespans of people before Flood may have been symbolic, but at least he also says they could be literal/factual.
Mounce was on the translation committee for the ESV, and is on the translation committee for the NIV. He used to be a pastor.
The narrator mispronounces Craig Blomberg's name as "Bloomberg" many times throughout book.
In my notes, "ms" means manuscript, and "mss" means manuscripts.
Notes
Preface
Recommended books
• The Historical Reliability of the New Testament by Craig L. Blomberg
• Dethroning Jesus by Darrell L. Bock
• Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, Daniel B. Wallace, M. James Sawyer
• The Question of Canon by Michael J. Kruger
• Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones
Jesus before the Gospels
There's plenty of non-Biblical evidence of Jesus' existence. There aren't more historical records because during His life, He was relatively unimportant from the perspective of the Roman Empire (He was from an unimportant town in a relatively unimportant country, with no political power).
Oral cultures have much better ability to memorize and recall than non-oral cultures.
Oral tradition is very different from telephone game. In oral tradition, stories were spread in communities, not individual to individual, and people who knew stories could correct mistakes. Those retelling stories had a personal interest in truthfulness of what they said.
Gospels have differences (not contradictions) because they're summaries, paraphrases, abridgments.
Eyewitnesses and church leaders were guardians of Christian tradition, able to point out false info when it arose (Acts 1:15; 15:15; 1 Cor 15:6).
Holy Spirit helped disciples remember Jesus' teachings (Jn 14:26).
Mark was written at latest by middle of 60s; other gospels were written within 1 generation of Jesus' disciples.
Jesus of the Gospels
Names of authors were added to gospels before end of 1st century. Authorship of 4 gospels was unanimously attributed by mid-2nd century, which could've happened only if church knew authors for quite some time. There's no record of disagreement over authorship of 4 gospels throughout Roman Empire.
There are no copies of 4 gospels that are anonymous or with different names than traditional authors. In every gospel text where beginning or end survives, traditional authorship is assigned.
Conservative scholars date Mark in 60s, Matt and Luke 70s-80s, John 90s. Others date Mark in 70s, Matt and Luke 80s, John 90s. Regardless, they're 1st-century documents written by eyewitnesses or secondhand witnesses, giving accounts that could be checked and corrected by community.
Gospels were written decades after Jesus because people valued oral tradition to written accounts. Written accounts became necessary as witnesses began dying. Also, time gap is incredibly short compared to most ancient writings, which were often written hundreds of years after events.
Arguments for accuracy of gospels
• Gospels contain embarrassing details. Fabrications wouldn't.
• Gospels contain difficult, troubling teachings. Fabrications wouldn't.
• Gospels don't contain teachings that would've been useful in solving early church disagreements. Fabrications would've included them.
Contradictions
Contradictions in the Bible
Jesus didn't contradict Himself by saying "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Mt 12:30; Lk 11:23) and "For he who is not against us is on our side" (Mk 9:38-40). The former is about people who aren't Jesus' disciples; the latter is about people who are.
When Jesus said, "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Mt 24:24; Mk 13:29), "these things" refers to destruction of temple in AD 70.
Digging Deeper into Apparent Contradictions
Ancient standards for historical writing were less precise than ours. It was acceptable to abbreviate events by combining them into a single account.
Jesus' Passover meal (Last Supper) was Thu evening, His examination before Jewish leaders late Thu to Fri morning, His trial before Pilate was Fri morning. "Day of preparation" (Jn 19:31) must be Fri; it was day of preparing for festivities, not for Passover meal. Jn 18:28 could refer to lunch day after Passover, or it's possible that difference is due to 2 different calendars used by people and temple authorities.
The Canon
Why Do We Have the Twenty-Seven Books in the New Testament?
When someone questions NT canon, ask, "Have you read the book(s) you think should be in NT?" or, "Which book(s) do you think should be in the NT?" Then ask, "Who wrote it? How does it agree with rest of canon? Why didn't church include it in canon?" Follow up with, "Which book(s) do you think shouldn't be in Bible?" This will help determine if their objection is truly about canon, or about Bible's teachings.
Process of accepting apostolic writings as authoritative began during NT (Jn 14:26; 16:13). Apostles taught with Jesus' authority (1 Cor 7:10-12; 14:37; Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Pet 3:2; Rev 1:1-2), so church accepted their writings as equal in authority to Jesus' sayings. Paul calls Deut 25:4 and Lk 10:7 "Scripture" (1 Tim 5:18). Paul gives equal authority to his own and Jesus' teaching (1 Cor 7:10, 12). Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture" (2 Pet 3:15-16).
Church fathers in 2nd century quoted wide selection of apostolic writings as authoritative. Polycarp knew John personally, and quoted Paul's writings as "Scripture."
Majority of canon was formed as soon as apostles wrote books and letters (by middle to end of 1st century).
Digging Deeper into the Canon
There were not alternative canons
• There was always a core of canon as soon as apostolic books were written. Debates were about epistles.
• Books that weren't part of core didn't represent their own orthodoxy that contradicted accepted core.
• Heresies of 1st and 2nd centuries didn't develop on their own; they were in contrast to existing orthodoxy (perversions of it), not competing orthodoxies.
• That lists of canonical books were discussed for 6 centuries shows that one group wasn't powerful enough to suppress all debate.
• Existence of heresy doesn't mean there was no orthodoxy.
Church fathers weren't necessarily considering non-canonical books canonical simply because they quoted them.
Textual Criticism
Are the Greek Texts Hopelessly Corrupt?
Reading that best explains others ("harder" reading) is more likely to be original.
Shorter reading is more likely to be original.
Thousands of mss show scribes were hesitant to remove words, but were willing to add them.
Greek is inflected language, so there are many ways to express same idea in different words, which leads to variants that are viable but not meaningful.
Over 70% of variants are spelling and grammatical errors, which are easy to identify, and don't prevent discovering original text.
Angel stirring pool at Bethesda (Jn 5:3b-4) was added decades after John wrote gospel.
Last line of Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:13) was added centuries after Matthew wrote gospel. Scribes probably borrowed from 1 Chr 29:11-13.
Fewer than 1% of variants are both meaningful (they change meaning) and viable (they could be original). None cast doubt on a single Biblical doctrine.
UBS text identifies 373 out of 1,408 places where there's significant doubt about a meaningful variant; 0.09% of 400,000 total variants.
Digging Deeper into Textual Criticism
As church expanded westward, mss needed to be understandable, so scribes expanded and simplified text. Mss from Western text-type tend to be less reliable than Alexandrian.
Byzantine texts are most common Greek mss. They seem to be combination of Alexandrian and Western text-types. There are no examples of Byzantine texts before 4th century, but by 9th century 95% of all mss were Byzantine.
Modern English Bibles have only 2 paragraph-length passages that aren't original: Jn 7:53 - 8:11; Mk 16:9-20.
Jn 7:53 - 8:11 isn't original
• It's missing from oldest mss.
• No church father wrote a commentary on it until 12th century.
• 1st ms to contain it is from 5th century, and it contained many added readings.
• Many mss mark it with explanatory comments that it's inauthentic.
• Erasmus' #1 ms omits it, and he said it wasn't in majority of Greek copies.
• It appears in different locations in different mss.
• Its style and vocabulary are different from rest of gospel.
• It interrupts flow of Jesus' discourse.
Mk 16:9-20 isn't original
• It's missing from most important old mss, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
• It's missing from some mss of ancient translations.
• Some church fathers knew of mss that didn't include it, and many church fathers don't comment on it.
• It's not in Eusebius' 4th-century numbering system. He said accurate copies of Mark ended at Mk 16:8, and subsequent verses were absent from almost all mss.
• Many mss that include it indicate that older mss lack it. Other mss mark it as an addition.
• Jerome included it in Vulgate, but said almost all Greek copies didn't include it.
• Erasmus' #1 ms said it was uncertain.
• There are other alternate endings to Mark. If this ending was authentic, there wouldn't be a reason to create alternatives.
• Transition from Mk 16:8 to v 9 is awkward.
• Style, grammar, lexical choices are different from rest of gospel.
There are a couple dozen other variants of 1-2 verse length.
1 Jn 5:7b-8a was added centuries after John wrote original.
In vast majority of cases, textual criticism has given us original reading. There are very few places it can't.
It's misleading to emphasize number of variants without discussing their significance.
Erasmus relied primarily on 3 mss, all from 12th century, for his Greek NT (used for KJV).
There are ~20 editions of Textus Receptus (TR) based on Erasmus' work.
Most notable variants are caused by differences between modern translations based on Alexandrian mss and KJV based on TR.
Digging Much Deeper into Textual Criticism
Because mss can be copied from same source, counting mss isn't enough; you must weigh them by internal (words within ms) and external evidence (mss text-type, versions, patristic quotations).
In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman admits, "of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance."
Most mss lasted 100-125 yrs, but some were usable for 300 yrs, and a small number for 500 yrs.
Scribes made mistakes, but were quite careful and faithful in copying, not lax, careless, willing to change text. There isn't evidence that early scribes made more mistakes and deliberate changes than later ones.
Controls that ensured accuracy of early mss
• They could've been compared to autograph and its copy.
• Writings were respected as authoritative.
• Documents were read aloud (1 Tim 4:13), and people memorized them.
• Early scribes were Jewish, and Jewish scribes were obsessed with accuracy.
If there had been serious changes to text in 1st and 2nd centuries, we wouldn't have relatively uniform text in 3rd and 4th centuries.
There's no evidence that all early scribes were Christians, despite claim that early scribes conspired to change text for theological reasons.
Translations
Translation Theory
Categories of translation theory
1. Interlinear: Lists Greek words in Greek word order, giving English gloss (approximation) for meaning of each. Closest to "literal" translation.
2. Formal equivalence: Tries to reflect grammatical structures of original. Tries to adhere closely to original words and be minimally interpretive. Often has awkward, antiquated English. ESV, NASB, KJV.
3. Functional/dynamic equivalence: Aims to convey original meaning of text in English. Involves more interpretation. Is more understandable, but can be more idiomatic. NIV, CSB.
4. Natural language: Tries to repeat meaning of original language in English in natural style. Easy to understand. Often introduces ideas not in original. NLT.
5. Transculturations: Changes/distorts historical meaning of original to make it more apparent (sometimes inaccurately called paraphrases). The New Testament in Modern English, The Message, The Living Bible.
No standard English Bibles are "literal" (translators merely translate words). Each word must be analyzed for meaning, an interpretive decision made, then meaning expressed in English (requiring another interpretive decision). Closest to "literal" is interlinear Bible.
Digging Deeper into Translation
Translations rarely disagree; difference is usually in how vague (e.g., "love of Christ") or specific (e.g., "Christ's love") they are.
The Old Testament
The Historicity of the Old Testament
Judaism never accepted OT Apocrypha as authoritative (Josephus' "Against Appian" 1.38).
Jesus never quoted from Apocrypha. At His time, some of these books were interspersed with canonical OT books.
3 most important Greek mss (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) include some of Apocrypha. Septuagint contained some of Apocrypha.
Some early church fathers included some of Apocrypha in their lists, even if they though they were only appropriate for devotional reading. Other fathers said they were clearly not canonical.
Jerome included Apocrypha in Vulgate, but stated that he doubted their authenticity.
Reformers rejected OT Apocrypha as canonical
• Judaism never accepted it as canonical.
• It was written after God stopped speaking to Israel in 4th century BC and before Christ's birth.
• It includes doctrines that don't fit canon (prayers for dead, purgatory).
Conclusion: Why I Trust the Bible
Case for trusting Bible
• Bible claims to be from God.
• No challenges against Bible are convincing.
• Bible is accurate and deserves benefit of doubt, even if we can't answer all questions about it.
• Trusting Bible is most rational choice. It provides best answers to questions of life; they make sense. It's consistent with itself and reality.