Chapter 6:

Unparalleled Historicity
Is the text of the Bible a reliable historical document?

Footnotes

[1] There is now some rising controversy that the scrolls could have a later date of origin than previously thought.

[2] The information in this paragraph has been taken almost directly from the “Scrolls from the Dead Sea Exhibition,” Library of Congress, 1997, http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/toc.html

[3] “Biblical literature,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119705&sctn=18

[4] “The Gospel According to Archaeology,” National Post, October 23, 1999, p. B6.

[5] “Archaeologists Bolster Faith with Round of Biblical Finds,” Associated Press, December 15, 1996.

[6] “Is the Bible True?” U.S. News & World Report, October 25, 1999, cover story.

[7] The examples listed are taken from “Archaeologists Bolster Faith with Round of Biblical Finds,” Associated Press.

[7a] As an update, some experts now believe this particular artifact's inscription was added later, which would indicate the inscription was fake, leading to charges pressed against the alleged forgers (as of Dec 31, 2004).

[8] “Is the Bible True?” U.S. News & World Report.

[9] W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (New York, NY: Revell, 1935), p. 127. In matters of biblical scholarship, reference materials such as encyclopedias usually take a liberal viewpoint. Commenting specifically on the Book of Luke, for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that “historically reliable information cannot be expected from Luke’s Gospel because his sources were not historical, but were embedded in tradition and proclamation.” However, as demonstrated, this type of skepticism has been falsified time and again by continuous archaeological discoveries. With respect to the Gospel of Luke, skeptics have had to admit that archaeology has repeatedly shown the author’s writings to be historically reliable, especially his second book, Acts. As respected Oxford historian Sherwin- White wrote, “It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the 20th century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no-less-promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the developments of form criticism. . . . For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd.” A.N. Sherwin- White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 107, 189.

[10] Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland, editors, Jesus Under Fire, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 221. Furthermore, Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Gary Habermas, The Verdict of History (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1988).

[11] “Jesus Christ (Non-Christian sources),” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=109559&sctn=2

[12] “Josephus Flavius,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=45021&sctn=1

[13] “Testimony of Flavius,” Antiquities, XVIII, 63ff. This is one of the larger of several passages in Josephus’s writings which refers to Jesus. Most scholars agree that this particular passage has an authentic core but also includes later Christian insertions.

[14] “Annals of Tacitus,” XV, 44; see “Jesus Christ (Non-Christian sources),” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?eu=109559&sctn=2

[15] “Pliny the Younger,” Epistle 10, 96ff; again see “Jesus Christ (Non- Christian sources),” Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

[16] “Vita Claudii,” 25:4; see “Jesus Christ (Non-Christian sources),” Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

[17] “Toledot Yeshua”; see “Jesus Christ (Non-Christian sources),” Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

[18] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1991), p. 177.

[19] This table has been derived from various sources, as follows: F.W. Hall, Companion to Classical Text, “MS Authorities for the Text of the Chief Classical Writers” (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), as cited in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1972); also Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 36–41; also F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 16–17. See also “Biblical Literature,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/ topic?idxref=523796.

[20] “Biblical literature,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119712&sctn=9. The earliest known fragment of the New Testament, the John Ryland Manuscript located in the John Ryland Library of Manchester, England, dated A.D. 130, was written 40 years or less after the presumed date of the production of that Gospel. Other ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century; the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century; the Codex Sinaiticus, dated A.D. 350; and the Codex Vaticanus, dated A.D. 325–350. See two more articles on “Biblical literature” in Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119712&sctn=15, and http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=119712&sctn=13.

[21] Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship (London: J. Murray, 1948), p. 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

[22] Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Story of the Bible (London: Murray, 1967), p.133.

[23] Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1941), p. 23, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, p. 45.

[24] “Gospel of Matthew,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=52722&sctn=1. Emphasis added.

[25] The majority of New Testament scholarship widely agrees that both Luke and Acts were authored by the same person, and that Acts is a continuation of Luke. (“Acts of the Apostles,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=3660&sctn=1)

[26] Christianity Today, Jan. 18, 1963; also William Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1946), p. 23.

[27] Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p.297–298.

[28] “Saint Paul,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?artcl=108605&seq_nbr=1&page=p&isctn=1 & http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=108605&seq_nbr=1&page=n&isctn=2

[29] “Saint Paul,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://members.eb.com/ bol/topic?artcl=108605&seq_nbr=1&page=n&isctn=2

[30] See “Saint Paul,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http:// members.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=108605&seq_nbr=1&page=p&isctn=1.

[top]