Refutation of the Book The Bible — God's Word or Man's?

Posted by Seeker on May-June, 1998 on Hourglass2 Outpost

Index:

Rebuttal of Chapter 1: Why Read the Bible?

Posted by Seeker on May 06, 1998 at 08:31:12


This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 1: "Why Read the Bible?"

Chapter 1

Why Read the Bible?

We are living in a world with too many problems and far too few answers. Many millions regularly go hungry. Increasing numbers are addicted to drugs. More and more families are breaking up. Incest and family violence are constantly in the news. The air we breathe and the water we drink are slowly being poisoned. Meanwhile, more and more of us are victimized by crime. Do you think problems like these will ever be solved?

There are problems in the world, yes, but certainly many answers as well. The problems they list are being dealt with by those who care to make changes. Many do. Drug use is down, crime is down, pollution is down. No, these problems will never go away completely, but neither will they just keep getting worse, as this paragraph seems to be saying.

Incidentally, hunger, drug abuse, broken families, incest, family violence, pollution and crime can all be found among the WTS. They should be careful about pointing fingers...

IN ADDITION, we live in an age of hard choices. Many, for example, are implacably opposed to abortion, calling it murder of the unborn. Others feel just as strongly that women have authority over their own bodies and should decide such a matter for themselves. Many view homosexuality, adultery, and premarital sex as rank immorality. Others believe these practices are a matter of personal choice. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?

Precisely, although this won't stop them from trying to tell us what is right and wrong.

2 The Bible offers guidance in matters of morality, and it describes effective solutions to the problems of crime, hunger, and pollution. The trouble is, most people no longer view the Bible as an authority in such matters. At one time, it was listened to with respect -- at least in the West. Although the Bible was written down by humans, in the past the majority in Christendom accepted it as the Word of God and believed that God himself had inspired its contents.

The Bible has some good common-sense guidelines that are followed by people all over the earth, including many who have barely even heard of the Bible. Look at the "non-Christian" nations, and notice how they seem to have the same problems, as well as the same solutions as the "Christian" nations. Why hasn't the Bible made a difference?

3 Today, however, it is fashionable to be skeptical about everything: customs, ideas, morals, even the existence of God. Especially, people doubt the value of the Bible. Most seem to consider it out of date and irrelevant. Few modern intellectuals view it as the Word of God. Most people would rather agree with scholar James Barr, who wrote: "My account of the formation of the biblical tradition is an account of a human work. It is man's statement of his beliefs." 1

As we will see, this is the viewpoint that makes the most sense, and that the facts of the case point to. Do you disagree? Feel free to create your own rebuttal of what I will write.

4 Is this your opinion? Do you think the Bible is God's word, or man's? However you answer that question, consider this point: If the Bible is merely man's word, then logically there is no clear answer to mankind's problems. Humans will just have to muddle through as best they can, hoping somehow to avoid poisoning themselves out of existence or blowing themselves up in a nuclear war. But if the Bible is the Word of God, it is the very thing we need to get us through this difficult time.

This is a clear example of the Society's faulty logic. There is nothing "logical" about saying that if the Bible is merely man's word then there is no clear answer to mankind's problems. One does not follow from the other, and it is a gross oversimplification of the facts. As far as humans muddling through, they have managed for millennia, and it seems they will continue to do so. Scare tactics don't help the situation.

5 This publication will present evidence that the Bible really is God's Word. And the publishers hope that after you have considered the evidence, you will realise that the Bible contains the only valid answers to mankind's problems. First, though, we would like to draw to your attention some facts that, in themselves, make the Bible worthy of your consideration.

We will see what kind of 'evidence' the Society provides...

An All-Time Best-Seller

6 To begin with, it is a best-seller, the most widely circulated book in all history. According to the 1988 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records, an estimated 2,500,000,000 copies were printed between 1815 and 1975. That is an enormous figure. No other book in history has come even close to the Bible in circulation figures.

7 Besides that, no other book has been translated into so many languages. The Bible can now be read, in its entirety or in part, in more than 1,800 different tongues. The American Bible Society reports that it is now accessible to 98 percent of the population of our planet. Imagine the huge effort involved in producing so many translations! What other book has received such attention?

This, of course, only proves that people think the Bible is the word of God. It is not a proof that it actually is the word of God. Similarly, the Book of Mormon, the Koran and other 'holy' books have received a tremendous circulation, but of course in those cases, no Christian thinks that 'might makes right'. The Koran's amazing circulation means nothing to a Christian, other than the fact that they realize that Moslems think the Koran is the word of God. This is no proof, anymore than Mao's 'little red book' came from God, or that AOL disks come from God.

Remember, the key is for people to think something is the word of God, and then amazing things are done by those people. Zeal is the key, not accuracy.

A Book With Influence

8 The New Encyclopædia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history." 2 The 19th-century German poet Heinrich Heine confessed: "I owe my enlightenment quite simply to the reading of a book ... the Bible. It is quite rightly called Holy Scriptures. He who has lost his God can rediscover Him in this book."3 During that same century, antislavery activist William H. Seward proclaimed: "The whole hope of human progress is suspended on the ever-growing influence of the Bible."4

9 Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, called the Bible "the best gift God has ever given to man ... But for it we could not know right from wrong."5 British jurist Sir William Blackstone highlighted the influence of the Bible when he said: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation [the Bible], depend all human laws, that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."6

This is anecdotal evidence, a favourite tactic of the Society. This means nothing, of course, anymore than quoting a bunch of people who think the Bible is rubbish would mean anything.

As far as it being an influential book, that is true, but it again goes back to people thinking it is God's word, and nothing more than that. For example, entire nations in the Moslem world are changing their very form of government and society in order to match the Koran's teachings. That's influence on a far greater scale than the Bible's, for what nation explicitly states that they are going to change their laws and constitutions to match the Bible? Does this mean that the Koran is the word of God, since it is a book of such influence? See how these arguments become meaningless?

Hated and Loved

10 At the same time, we have to note that no other book has been the target of so much vicious opposition and even hatred throughout history. Bibles have been burned on public bonfires, from the Middle Ages down to our 20th century. And reading or distributing the Bible has been punished with fines and imprisonment even in modern times. In past centuries, such "crimes" often led to torture and death.

This had nothing to do with the Bible as much as it had to do with political ends of the church. It had power, wanted to keep that power, and so conspired to keep information out of the hands of the common person. How does the political machinations of the church prove anything about the Bible being God's word?

11 Parallel with this has been the devotion that the Bible has inspired. Many have persevered in reading it despite relentless persecution. Consider William Tyndale, a 16th-century Englishman who was educated at Oxford University and became a respected instructor at Cambridge University.

12 Tyndale loved the Bible. But in his days, the religious authorities insisted on keeping it in Latin, a dead language. So, in order to make it accessible to his fellow countrymen, Tyndale determined to translate the Bible into English. Since this was against the law, Tyndale had to give up his comfortable academic career and flee to the Continent. He lived the difficult life of a fugitive long enough to translate the Greek Scriptures (the "New Testament") and some of the Hebrew Scriptures (the "Old Testament") into his native tongue; but he was finally arrested, convicted of heresy, and strangled, and his body was burned.

13 Tyndale is only one of a great number of people who have sacrificed everything in order to read the Bible or make it available to others. No other book has inspired so many ordinary men and women to rise to such heights of courage. In this respect, the Bible is truly without equal.

Again, as long as Tyndale believed the Bible was the word of God, he was willing to face death. Today, suicide bombers make the same point about the Koran. In neither case does this tell us anything beyond the state of mind of the person who gave up his life.

Claim That It Is God's Word

14 The Bible is also unique because of the claim made by many of its writers. Some 40 individuals, including kings, shepherds, fishermen, civil servants, priests, at least one general, and a physician, had a hand in writing the different parts of the Bible. But time and again, the writers made the same claim: that they were writing not their own thoughts but God's.

15 Thus, in the Bible we often read expressions such as: "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue" or, "This is what the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has said." (2 Samuel 23:2; Isaiah 22:15) In a letter sent to a fellow evangelizer, the apostle Paul wrote: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." -- 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

If I were writing a 'holy' book, I would make the same claim too. It gives you power over others. But saying something does not make it so. It is merely a handy way out in case someone questions what you wrote.

16 In harmony with the claim that it is God's word, not man's, the Bible answers questions that only God can answer. It explains, for example, why human governments have not been able to bring lasting peace, how humans can find the deepest satisfaction in life, and what the future holds for the earth and mankind upon it. Now, as a thinking person, you must have wondered about these and similar questions many times. Why not at least consider the possibility that the Bible is God's Word and thus uniquely able to give authoritative answers?

We will, indeed, put it to the test. But just because it claims to give answers, it doesn't necessarily mean those answers are real. The Mormon writings tell you that you can be a god of your old little planet. That is an answer only God can give, but is it the right answer?

17 We encourage you to examine carefully the evidence presented in this book. Some of its chapters will discuss often-heard criticisms of the Bible. Is the Bible unscientific? Does it contradict itself? Does it contain real history or just myth? Did the miracles recorded in the Bible really happen? Logical evidence is presented to answer these questions. After this, powerful demonstrations of the Bible's divine inspiration are discussed: its prophecies, its deep wisdom, and the remarkable effect it has on people's lives. Finally, we will see what effect the Bible can have on your life.

18 First, though, we will discuss how we got the Bible. Even the history of this amazing book gives proof that it has more than merely a human origin.

Tune in next time to see these points rebutted...

Rebuttal of Chapter 2: The Bible's Fight to Live

Posted by Seeker on May 12, 1998 at 05:24:48


This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 2: "The Bible's Fight to Live".

Chapter 2

The Bible's Fight to Live

THE Bible is more than just a book. It is a rich library of 66 books, some short and some quite long, containing law, prophecy, history, poetry, counsel, and much more. Centuries before the birth of Christ, the first 39 of these books were written -- mostly in the Hebrew language -- by faithful Jews, or Israelites. This part is often called the Old Testament. The last 27 books were written in Greek by Christians and are widely known as the New Testament. According to internal evidence and the most ancient traditions, these 66 books were written over a period of about 1,600 years, beginning when Egypt was a dominant power and ending when Rome was mistress of the world.

This is correct background information.

Only the Bible Survived

2 More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God, while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses. During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.

The other nations certainly didn't view their gods and goddesses as 'bewildering'. This is the judgment of outsiders looking in. Probably to them the Israelite practice of worshipping Jehovah seemed odd. By phrasing it this way, a subtle downplaying of other religious traditions is made, and an exalting of Israelite worship.

This paragraph only lists very few of the ancient religious texts dating from that time. There are others, as will be shown below, that share a similar rich history and influence people greatly to this day.

3 All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.

Not really. This is the luck of the draw. If western civilization had decided to follow the legend of Gilgamesh, instead of the legend of Christ, then Akkadian would have survived and Hebrew may have become extinct. By saying whatever religious tradition survived must the right one is to ignore the way history works. Besides, there are many other languages and traditions that have survived to this day, but the Society doesn't comment on them. Instead they pick a few 'safe' examples to compare to the Bible.

We now see why the WTS picked those few examples of ancient religious writings -- they specifically chose examples that are now virtually forgotten and were written in now extinct languages. This allows them to make the statement in the last paragraph that the Bible is marked as significantly different. This is not a fair comparison, however. They are stacking the deck to make their point stand out.

A fairer comparison would be to compare the Bible with the Buddhist writings, or Hindu traditions, both of which survive to this day. Note these examples, and see how they differ from the examples the WTS used in the book:

From the book, Mankind's Search for God, page 102, we find this about the Hindu writings:

"The oldest writings are the Vedas, a collection of prayers and hymns known as the Rig-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, and the Atharva-Veda. They were composed during several centuries and were completed about 900 B.C.E. The Vedas were later supplemented by other writings, including the Brahmanas and the Upanishads."

Here we have the longevity argument, so does the fact that people still read the Vedas today mean that God was behind it's survival?

Let's take another example from that region of the earth, Zoroastrianism. This is the ancient religion of Persia and extends to this day in Iran and India. Did you know that the prophet Zarathusthtra lived 3500 years ago, placing him contemporary with the earliest Bible writings? In addition, this was one of the first monotheistic religions.

If the WTS had compared the Bible's background with the religious writings that have survived to our day, they would not have been able to make their superiority claims about the Bible in the way they did. By choosing specific examples of writings that do not influence people today, they created a false impression.

The Guardians of the Word

4 Make no mistake, from a human standpoint the survival of the Bible was not a foregone conclusion. The communities that produced it suffered such difficult trials and bitter oppression that its survival to our day is truly remarkable. In the years before Christ, the Jews who produced the Hebrew Scriptures (the "Old Testament") were a relatively small nation. They dwelt precariously amid powerful political states that were jostling with one another for supremacy. Israel had to fight for its life against a succession of nations, such as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites. During a period when the Hebrews were divided into two kingdoms, the cruel Assyrian Empire virtually wiped out the northern kingdom, while the Babylonians destroyed the southern kingdom, taking the people into an exile from which only a remnant returned 70 years later.

Israel was so small and insignificant that the world powers consistently gave them little notice. Yes, they eventually would fall to one power or another, but they were hardly the prime target each time.

This, however, is really beside the point. The argument being made here is that since the Jews survived as a small nation under great odds, this means God was behind them. What about the other nations or religious group, under great odds, which also survived? For example, Hinduism survived wave after wave of invasions. Was God behind them too? If not, this argument becomes meaningless.

Just a side point, it is interesting that this argument (the nation is small, threatened by more powerful neighbours, and its survival can only be attributed by divine intervention) is used for the nation of Israel prior to Jesus. But the exact same arguments can be used for modern day Israel. It continues to be a small nation, threatened by powerful neighbours, and modern day Jews continue to attribute their survival as a manifestation of divine approval.

Interestingly the WTS only uses this line of reasoning to support their argument above, but would dismiss the exact same reasoning as faulty when talking to a Jewish person today.

5 There are even reports of attempted genocide against the Israelites. Back in the days of Moses, Pharaoh ordered the murder of all their newborn baby boys. If his order had been observed, the Hebrew people would have been annihilated. (Exodus 1:15-22) Much later, when the Jews came under Persian rule, their enemies plotted to get a law passed intended to exterminate them. (Esther 3:1-15) The failure of this scheme is still celebrated in the Jewish Festival of Purim.

This is a similar point, but still not very relevant to the main idea.

6 Later still, when the Jews were subject to Syria, King Antiochus IV tried very hard to Hellenize the nation, forcing it to follow Greek customs and worship Greek gods. He too failed. Instead of being wiped out or assimilated, the Jews survived while, one after the other, most of the national groups around them disappeared from the world scene. And the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible survived with them.

This is a common theme throughout history, and nothing unique to the Jews of that time.

7 The Christians, who produced the second part of the Bible (the "New Testament"), were also an oppressed group. Their leader, Jesus, was killed like a common criminal. In the early days after his death, Jewish authorities in Palestine tried to suppress them. When Christianity spread to other lands, the Jews hounded them, trying to hinder their missionary work. -- Acts 5:27, 28; 7:58-60; 11:19-21; 13:45; 14:19; 18:5, 6.

Nothing new here either. Struggles are endemic to history. All religious groups were oppressed at one time or another. This oppression does not, in itself, prove anything other than that people don't like people who think differently from them.

8 In the time of Nero, the initially tolerant attitude of the Roman authorities changed. Tacitus boasted of the "exquisite tortures" inflicted on Christians by that vicious emperor, and from his time on, being a Christian was a capital offense. In 303 C.E., Emperor Diocletian acted directly against the Bible. In an effort to stamp out Christianity, he ordered that all Christian Bibles should be burned.

It was too late by then. People had decided that Christianity was the way to go, and thus would hang on with their very lives. Hitler couldn't wipe out the Jews during World War II, and Diocletian couldn't wipe out all the Christian bibles. As long as people think something is worth preserving, they will do whatever it takes to keep it alive. Thus the remarkable survival of the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu writings, the Buddhist writings...

9 These campaigns of oppression and genocide were a real threat to the Bible's survival. If the Jews had gone the way of the Philistines and the Moabites or if the efforts of first the Jewish and then the Roman authorities to stamp out Christianity had succeeded, who would have written and preserved the Bible? Happily, the guardians of the Bible -- first the Jews and then the Christians -- were not wiped out, and the Bible survived. There was, however, another serious threat if not to the survival at least to the integrity of the Bible.

This whole paragraph could have been re-written to say "Happily, the guardians of Gilgamesh..." if the Akkadian traditions had remained triumphant. Again, whoever made it had bragging rights, but it proves nothing.

This subheading was just one example after another of oppression, but if one example doesn't prove the point, a dozen won't either. This is a common tactic used by the Society: resort to anecdotal evidence to bury the audience with 'facts', irregardless of their relevance to the argument at hand.

In summary, this subheading demonstrates that the nation of Israel and the Christians (the keepers of the Bible) survived wars, persecution, and attempted assimilation. And of course, in surviving, the Bible was preserved. All of this is true and factual.

Now the leap of logic occurs. Because of the above, this somehow proves the Bible is God's book. If we were to follow this logic, then this would be true of any holy writings, claiming divine inspiration, that survived wars, persecution and attempted assimilation. As already shown, the Hindu religious writings fall into this same category, and yet the WTS does not apply this same argument to these Hindu writings.

Fallible Copies

10 Many of the aforementioned ancient works that were subsequently forgotten had been engraved in stone or stamped on durable clay tablets. Not so the Bible. This was originally written on papyrus or on parchment -- much more perishable materials. Thus, the manuscripts produced by the original writers disappeared long, long ago. How, then, was the Bible preserved? Countless thousands of copies were laboriously written out by hand. This was the normal way to reproduce a book before the advent of printing.

Of course, there are literally thousands of extant Babylonian records from the brief time-period of the Jewish captivity, yet that doesn't seem to count. So far, they are making it seem that only the Bible survived, when in fact there are many writings that survived. The Society merely ignores all of the others. For examples of these Babylonian records, see the appendix to the book Let Your Kingdom Come.

11 There is, however, a danger in copying by hand. Sir Frederic Kenyon, the famous archaeologist and librarian of the British Museum, explained: "The human hand and brain have not yet been created which could copy the whole of a long work absolutely without error.... Mistakes were certain to creep in." When a mistake crept into a manuscript, it was repeated when that manuscript became the basis for future copies. When many copies were made over a long period of time, numerous human errors crept in.

Of course, it helps if people think they are copying God's word. People will do strange things if they think it is for God. Look at the Catholics who will crawl on their knees for miles in order to 'please God'. Remarkable behaviour, but when God comes into the picture, people will go to extremes that produce amazing results. Let's see how that comes into play in this subheading.

12 In view of the many thousands of copies of the Bible that were made, how do we know that this reproduction process did not change it beyond all recognition? Well, take the case of the Hebrew Bible, the "Old Testament." In the second half of the sixth century B.C.E., when the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile, a group of Hebrew scholars known as Sopherim, "scribes," became the custodians of the Hebrew Bible text, and it was their responsibility to copy those Scriptures for use in public and private worship. They were highly motivated, professional men, and their work was of the highest quality.

Again, they think they are doing it for God, so naturally they were highly motivated. All those medieval monks who produced those amazing tapestries and manuscripts thought they were serving God by doing so. It was the very belief that they were doing so that made it significant. Yet the WTS would not argue that those medieval monks were serving God accurately.

13 From the seventh century to the tenth century of our Common Era, the heirs of the Sopherim were the Masoretes. Their name comes from a Hebrew word meaning "tradition," and essentially they too were scribes charged with the task of preserving the traditional Hebrew text. The Masoretes were meticulous. For example, the scribe had to use a properly authenticated copy as his master text, and he was not allowed to write anything from memory. He had to check each letter before writing it. Professor Norman K. Gottwald reports: "Something of the care with which they discharged their duties is indicated in the rabbinic requirement that all new manuscripts were to be proofread and defective copies discarded at once."

Indeed, these scribes were highly skilled and produced excellent work. They had the highest motivation, after all, since they believed they were doing it for God.

14 How accurate was the transmission of the text by the Sopherim and the Masoretes? Until 1947 it was difficult to answer that question, since the earliest available complete Hebrew manuscripts were from the tenth century of our Common Era. In 1947, however, some very ancient manuscript fragments were found in caves in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, including parts of books of the Hebrew Bible. A number of fragments dated to before the time of Christ. Scholars compared these with existing Hebrew manuscripts to confirm the accuracy of the transmission of the text. What was the result of this comparison?

Note that only a tiny comparison can be made today, because only a few manuscript 'fragments' have been found, not the entire Hebrew scriptures. So a complete picture of the Bible's accuracy remains closed for now. Still, what they have found is fairly good. Notice:

15 One of the oldest works discovered was the complete book of Isaiah, and the closeness of its text to that of the Masoretic Bible we have today is amazing. Professor Millar Burrows writes: "Many of the differences between the [recently discovered] St. Mark's Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text." Burrows adds: "It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration."

It is amazing how accurate these copies turned out to be. But what is the argument? That God preserved His word? If so, then why weren't the copies perfect, instead of containing some minor differences? Is the argument that these copyists were only human and thus subject to error? Then how does the argument hold up at all that their accuracy implies God's intervention? Are we to assume that any amazingly preserved work of antiquity had God as its backer? We have the Hindu Vedas to this day, almost 3000 years of preservation and survival. Is God the author of the Vedas too?

16 In the case of the part of the Bible written in Greek by Christians, the so-called New Testament, the copyists were more like gifted amateurs than like the highly trained professional Sopherim. But working as they did under the threat of punishment by the authorities, they took their work seriously. And two things assure us that we today have a text essentially the same as that penned by the original writers. First, we have manuscripts dated much closer to the time of writing than is the case with the Hebrew part of the Bible. Indeed, one fragment of the Gospel of John is from the first half of the second century, less than 50 years from the date when John probably wrote his Gospel. Second, the sheer number of manuscripts that have survived provides a formidable demonstration of the soundness of the text.

This is factual, insofar as I know. It does seem that we have the Bible in accurate form to this day.

17 On this point, Sir Frederic Kenyon testified: "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."

This subheading comes down to this argument: The Bible manuscripts were preserved and copied with amazing accuracy. This is correct. Then the leap of logic comes in to claim that this proves God was behind the effort. Once again, however, the key is for people to think the Bible was God's word for this to have occurred.

The People and Their Languages

18 The original languages in which the Bible was written were also, in the long run, an obstacle to its survival. The first 39 books were mostly written in Hebrew, the tongue of the Israelites. But Hebrew has never been widely known. If the Bible had stayed in that language, it would never have had any influence beyond the Jewish nation and the few foreigners who could read it. However, in the third century B.C.E., for the benefit of Hebrews living in Alexandria, Egypt, translation of the Hebrew part of the Bible into Greek began. Greek was then an international language. Thus, the Hebrew Bible became easily accessible to non-Jews.

This is correct and factual.

19 When the time came for the second part of the Bible to be written, Greek was still very widely spoken, so the final 27 books of the Bible were written in that tongue. But not everybody could understand Greek. Hence, translations of both the Hebrew and the Greek parts of the Bible soon began to appear in the everyday languages of those early centuries, such as Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, and Latin translations were made in such numbers that an "authorized version" had to be commissioned. This was completed about 405 C.E. and came to be known as the Vulgate (meaning "popular" or "common").

And today the Bible is translated into many more languages, and this proves only that people think it is important to do so.

So the thrust of this section is that the Bible, although originally written in languages that are no longer commonly used today, was translated throughout history into the languages common of the time. What does this prove? That it is inspired? Following this logic, any book that was originally written in an obscure language and is then translated into more commonly used languages must be divinely inspired. Such as the Hindu Vedas.

20 Thus, it was in spite of many obstacles that the Bible survived down to the early centuries of our Common Era. Those who produced it were despised and persecuted minorities living a difficult existence in a hostile world. It could easily have been badly distorted in the process of copying, but it was not. Moreover, it escaped the danger of being available only to people who spoke certain languages.

This is true, but it also applies to other religious thought as well. The Bible is not the only religious writing to have survived this process.

You could replace the words 'the Bible' in this paragraph with the words 'the Hindu Vedas' and it would read the same.

21 Why was it so difficult for the Bible to survive? The Bible itself says: "The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19) In view of this, we would expect the world to be hostile to published truth, and this has proved to be the case. Why, then, did the Bible survive when so many other pieces of literature that did not face the same difficulties were forgotten? The Bible answers this too. It says: "The saying of Jehovah endures forever." (1 Peter 1:25) If the Bible really is the Word of God, no human power can destroy it. And right up into this 20th century, this has been true.

What about all those other pieces of ancient literature that did survive? Is that an indication that God was behind them? As for using Satan as a scapegoat for the persecution against Christians, that's an easy out. Every religious group thinks the evil one is out to get them.

22 However, in the fourth century of our Common Era, something happened that eventually resulted in new attacks on the Bible and profoundly affected the course of European history. Just ten years after Diocletian tried to destroy all copies of the Bible, imperial policy changed and "Christianity" was legalized. Twelve years later, in 325 C.E., a Roman emperor presided over the "Christian" Council of Nicaea. Why would such a seemingly favorable development prove to be hazardous for the Bible? We will see the answer in the following chapter.

The three lines of reasoning to prove inspiration that were used in this chapter were: a) survived hostility; b) survived centuries of copying; c) became available in commonly used languages.

When you remove all the superfluous information and reduce it to those three simple points, it becomes apparent that the WTS is making a leap of logic to prove its point. As stated, all of these arguments can be applied to the Hindu Vedas, so does that mean we have just proved they are inspired? If not, how can these arguments not apply to the Vedas, but do apply to the Bible?

Rebuttal of Chapter 3: The Bible's False Friend

Posted by Seeker on May 19, 1998 at 06:10:52


This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 3: "The Bible's False Friend".

For the last couple of weeks, I have had the assistance of someone else on this project. Although this person prefers to remain anonymous, it is only fair that I give credit, for this person has been a great help in improving the quality and accuracy of these documents. For that help, I am truly thankful.

Chapter 3

The Bible's False Friend

By the end of the first century, the writing of all the books of the Bible was completed. From then on, Christians were in the forefront of copying and distributing the complete Bible. At the same time, they were busy translating it into the most common languages of the day. While the Christian congregation was busy with this admirable work, however, something was beginning to take shape that would prove very dangerous to the survival of the Bible.

This is true. It is good to remember, however, that when the book speaks of "Christians" at this time (from the end of the first century onward), they are really talking about 'apostates'. By this time, as the following paragraphs go on to show, the apostate influence had already taken hold of the congregation to an extent, and this influence rapidly grew through the following decades and centuries. Interestingly, it was these 'apostates' who decided which books belonged in the Bible, and who busied themselves with copying and translating and distributing the word. Was God behind these apostates' efforts to preserve his word?

2 This development was foretold by the Bible itself. Jesus once told a parable of a man who sowed his field with good quality seeds of wheat. But "while men were sleeping," an enemy sowed seeds that would produce weeds. Both types of seeds sprouted, and for a while the weeds hid the wheat from view. By this parable, Jesus showed that the fruitage of his work would be true Christians but that after his death, false Christians would infiltrate the congregation. Eventually, it would be difficult to distinguish the genuine from the false. -- Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43.

3 The apostle Peter frankly warned of the effect of these weedlike "Christians" on the way people would view Christianity and the Bible. He warned: "There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively." -- 2 Peter 2:1, 2.

These two paragraphs are correct.

4 Even during the first century, the prophecies of Jesus and Peter were being fulfilled. Ambitious men infiltrated the Christian congregation and sowed dissension. (2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:21, 22; 3 John 9, 10) During the following two centuries, the purity of Bible truth was corrupted by Greek philosophy, and many mistakenly came to accept pagan doctrines as Bible truth.

So as stated earlier, it was during this time of ambition, dissension and worldly philosophy that the Bible, as we know it today, took shape. When we talk about the Bible "surviving" intact to our day, we really don't know if that is true or not. What if these 'apostates' got rid of books that they didn't like? What we have today in the form of the Bible is a direct result of 'apostate' action.

For example, although not included in the Hebrew versions of the Bible, the Apocrypha was included in a translation of the Hebrew texts into Greek made at Alexandria, Egypt, beginning in the 3rd century BC. This translation, popularly called the Septuagint because of the legend that it had been made by about 70 scholars, became the Bible of the early Christians before there were any New Testament writings. In about AD 400, when St. Jerome made a Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, he included the Apocryphal books (somewhat against his better judgment) because they had been in the Septuagint used by earlier Christians. These books thus found acceptance in both the Latin (Roman) and Greek churches. In the Bibles used in these churches, these books are found distributed throughout the Old Testament and are not considered Apocryphal as they are in Judaism, but as authoritative. Some modern editions of the Bible include these books as a separate section.

The books in this collection are: I and II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to the Book of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach), Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three (or the Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men), Daniel and Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, and I and II Maccabees.

If your Bible does not contain these books, then the choices these 'apostates' made certainly greatly reduced the influence of the apocrypha in your life. Have you ever read the Book of Judith, for example?

How do you know that the Bible has really come down to us intact, since it depended on 'apostates' to collect and preserve it?

5 In the fourth century, the Roman emperor Constantine adopted "Christianity" as the official religion of the Roman Empire. But the "Christianity" he knew was very different from the religion preached by Jesus. By now, the "weeds" were flourishing, just as Jesus had foretold. Nevertheless, we can be sure that during all that time, there were some who represented true Christianity and labored to follow the Bible as the inspired Word of God. -- Matthew 28:19, 20.

There does seem to have always been some who resist the common beliefs of the day and strike out on their own. Of course, this resistance occurs in all religions, and so it is hard to make much of a case for anything based on this. The last sentence in paragraph 5 is given without proof, just conjecture.

Bible Translation Opposed

6 It was in Constantine's time that Christendom as we know it today began to take shape. From then on, the degenerate form of Christianity that had taken root was no longer just a religious organization. It was a part of the state, and its leaders played an important role in politics. Eventually, the apostate church used its political power in a way that was completely opposed to Bible Christianity, introducing another dangerous threat to the Bible. How?

This is historically correct.

7 When Latin died out as an everyday tongue, new translations of the Bible were needed. But the Catholic Church no longer favored this. In 1079 Vratislaus, who later became king of Bohemia, asked the permission of Pope Gregory VII to translate the Bible into the language of his subjects. The pope's answer was no. He stated: "It is clear to those who reflect often upon it, that not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that holy scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error."

One could debate the merits of this argument, but in general it strikes me as a bad idea. I won't defend Christendom all that vigorously, and leave that to others who may have the inclination.

It is good to remember, however, that Latin had not died out as an everyday tongue by 1079 (as the paragraph seems to imply). It was still the common language of that period, with a tremendous amount of literature being written in Latin. Some of the most enduring medieval and world literature was produced during the 12th and 13th centuries -- in Latin.

During the late Middle Ages the use of what are now the national languages of Europe began to find greater expression in writing, though works in Latin were still being published as late as the 18th century. Early Renaissance writers often used it as well as their vernacular languages. Here we have an example of the WTS getting history wrong.

8 The pope wanted the Bible to be kept in the now-dead tongue of Latin. Its contents were to be kept "secret," not translated into the languages of the common people. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, produced in the 5th century to make the Bible accessible to all, now became a means of keeping it hidden.

Remember, Latin was hardly the dead language that it almost is today. Not only was this true in Jerome's day, but also in Pope Gregory VII's day. If a person really wanted to read the Bible, he needed to get educated, just as when an illiterate person becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses today, they are expected to learn to read. Granted it was harder in the Middle Ages, and opportunity was not there for everyone, but it was not impossible either.

9 As the Middle Ages progressed, the Church's stand against vernacular Bibles hardened. In 1199 Pope Innocent III wrote such a strong letter to the archbishop of Metz, Germany, that the archbishop burned all the German-language Bibles he could find. In 1229 the synod of Toulouse, France, decreed that "lay people" could not possess any Bible books in the common tongue. In 1233 a provincial synod of Tarragona, Spain, commanded that all books of "the Old or New Testament" be handed over to be burned. In 1407 the synod of clergy summoned in Oxford, England, by Archbishop Thomas Arundel expressly forbade the translating of the Bible into English or any other modern tongue. In 1431, also in England, Bishop Stafford of Wells forbade the translating of the Bible into English and the owning of such translations.

This is a prime example of the danger of organizations, for they eventually succumb to the inevitable goal of perpetuating themselves, even at the expense of Bible truth. What the Church did in the Middle Ages was wrong, and they deserve condemnation for their acts.

It is good to remember, however, that we are focusing on arguments that would hold up the Bible as the word of God. Although the history in this chapter is basically correct, it doesn't really address the overall theme of the book very well. No argument, no proof is offered here.

10 These religious authorities were not trying to destroy the Bible. They were trying to fossilize it, keep it in a language that only a few could read. In this way, they hoped to prevent what they called heresy but what really amounted to challenges to their authority. If they had succeeded, the Bible could have become just an object of intellectual curiosity, with little or no influence in the lives of ordinary people.

This is an excellent example of control. By controlling information (in this case the Bible), the church could hold onto it's power and authority, and yes, control, over the common people. There is much danger when any person or organization has such control over others -- as can be evidenced by the corruption and abuse within the church.

Of course, one can easily see how the WTS acts the same way today, controlling the type of information that the average JW is allowed to read. By doing this, they handle 'challenges to their authority,' just as the ancient church did.

The Bible's Champions

11 Happily, though, many sincere people refused to follow these edicts. But such refusals were dangerous. Individuals suffered terribly for the "crime" of owning a Bible. Consider, as an example, the case of a Spaniard named Julián Hernández. According to Foxe's History of Christian Martyrdom, Julián (or, Juliano) "undertook to convey from Germany into his own country a great number of Bibles, concealed in casks, and packed up like Rhenish wine." He was betrayed and seized by the Roman Catholic Inquisition. Those for whom the Bibles were destined "were all indiscriminately tortured, and then most of them were sentenced to various punishments. Juliano was burnt, twenty were roasted upon spits, several imprisoned for life, some were publicly whipped, many sent to the galleys."

These anecdotes don't prove much, other than highlighting some examples of adherence to right principles even in the face of death. You have to admire these men for what they did. But such acts of bravery and courage can be found among all ideologies on earth. Wherever and whenever you have an idea people believe in, you will find those willing to die for those beliefs. Wars are a prime example.

Just because someone is willing to die for his or her belief, it doesn't mean that belief comes from God.

12 What a horrible abuse of power! Clearly, these religious authorities were by no means representative of Bible Christianity! The Bible itself revealed to whom they belonged when it said: "The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother." -- 1 John 3:10-12.

Yes, indeed, this was a misuse of power. A strong warning example about the ability of power to corrupt (see Animal Farm by George Orwell).

13 How remarkable, though, that men and women were willing to risk such shocking treatment just to possess a Bible! And such examples have been multiplied many times over right down to our day. The deep devotion that the Bible has inspired in individuals, the willingness to suffer patiently and to submit uncomplainingly to terrible deaths without striking back at their tormentors, is a strong evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. -- 1 Peter 2:21.

This now becomes an unwarranted leap of logic. Let me reword that last sentence and see how it sounds this way: The deep devotion that the Koran has inspired in individuals, the willingness to suffer patiently and to submit uncomplainingly to terrible deaths via suicide bombings is a strong evidence that the Koran is the Word of God. You don't agree? Is not devotion being shown? Is not a willingness to suffer and die being shown? So why is this argument not just as valid?

14 Eventually, after the Protestant rebellion against Roman Catholic power in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church itself was forced to produce translations of the Bible in the everyday languages of Europe. But even then, the Bible was associated more with Protestantism than with Catholicism. As Roman Catholic priest Edward J. Ciuba wrote: "One would honestly have to admit that one of the more tragic consequences of the Protestant Reformation was a neglect of the Bible among the Catholic faithful. While it was never completely forgotten, the Bible was a closed book for most Catholics."

This is historically true, but as shown, this subheading does not really address the issue of the Bible being God's word. Instead, it relates the history of Christendom and those individuals who were devoted to the Bible. But devotion alone does not provide sufficient proof. Men can be devoted to a wide variety of beliefs, not all of them true.

Higher Criticism

15 But the Protestant churches are not free from blame as far as opposing the Bible is concerned. As the years passed, certain Protestant scholars mounted another sort of attack on the book: an intellectual attack. During the 18th and 19th centuries, they developed a method of studying the Bible known as higher criticism. Higher critics taught that much of the Bible was composed of legend and myth. Some even said that Jesus never existed. Instead of being designated the Word of God, the Bible was said by these Protestant scholars to be the word of man, and a very jumbled word at that.

The WTS has always feared intellectualism. 'Independent thinking' is roundly condemned. So this subheading falls under this category: Use name-calling to make a point. Is this too harsh a statement to make? Well, consider how they use the terms 'Higher criticism' as an insult. They don't really explain why these 'higher' critics decided that much of the Bible was composed of legend and myth, they just say it as if we all know this is absurd. This is classic advertising technique, 'we don't want to be like those people, we're better than that!'.

Some of the ideas in paragraph 15 that the Society attribute to 'higher' criticism can be backed up with facts. Many times on H2O this has been done. Legends and myths? The global flood account has been shown to fall under this category, for modern geology has clearly ruled out this as even a possibility (see Problems with a Global Flood and The Flood as a good starting point for more information).

Higher criticism is defined (by Compton's Encyclopedia) as: Critical study of biblical texts to ascertain their literary origins and history and the meaning and intention of the authors.

Would you call this an "attack"?

Besides, shouldn't the bible be able to stand up to intellectual scrutiny, considering it's alleged author is God?

Consider this: when a scientist writes a research paper, would he not make sure his findings are accurate and can stand up to the scrutiny of the research community, his peers? Even if he relied on an assistant, as the author he is ultimately responsible for the work, and it is his reputation at stake, would he not do everything within his power to ensure the accuracy of both his research and his conclusions as recorded in his manuscript?

God supposedly transferred his thoughts to imperfect humans to record. If he was able to do this, certainly he could ensure that his words would hold up to intellectual scrutiny by mere mortals!

16 While the more extreme of these ideas are no longer believed, higher criticism is still taught in seminaries, and it is not unusual to hear Protestant clergymen publicly disavow large sections of the Bible. Thus, one Anglican clergyman was quoted in an Australian newspaper as saying that much that is in the Bible "is just wrong. Some of the history is wrong. Some of the details are obviously garbled." This thinking is a product of higher criticism.

This last sentence is an example of name-calling. Later on in this book, the WTS will attempt to answer some of these charges with specifics, but we shall see that there is more to the arguments of these higher critics than the WTS is willing to admit.

"Spoken of Abusively"

17 Perhaps, though, it is the conduct of Christendom that has posed the greatest obstacle to people's accepting the Bible as God's Word. Christendom claims to follow the Bible. Yet, her conduct has brought great reproach on the Bible and on the very name Christian. As the apostle Peter foretold, the way of the truth has been "spoken of abusively." -- 2 Peter 2:2.

Indeed, this is most true. When people look at the lives of most Christians, they are turned off. This is true of all Christian religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses. Conduct does get noticed, and people do make judgments based on this conduct.

18 For example, while the church was banning Bible translation, the pope was sponsoring massive military efforts against the Muslims in the Middle East. These came to be called "holy" Crusades, but there was nothing holy about them. The first -- termed the "People's Crusade" -- set the tone for what was to come. Before leaving Europe, an unruly army, inflamed by preachers, turned on the Jews in Germany, slaughtering them in one town after another. Why? Historian Hans Eberhard Mayer says: "The argument that the Jews, as the enemies of Christ, deserved to be punished was merely a feeble attempt to conceal the real motive: greed."

Sad occurrences from history. It is true that all the so-called divinely inspired words of God (claimed by adherents of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.) seem to inspire in many of their followers a dislike of others. In the past we have examples such as in paragraph 18. Today we have other religious conflicts, both overtly, as well as those who wait for God to do the killing for them.

So the WTS is quite correct when they note that many people are turned away from the Bible by the conduct of its followers.

19 The Protestant rebellion in the 16th century dislodged Roman Catholicism from power in many European lands. One result was the Thirty Years' War (1618-48) -- "one of the most terrible wars in European history," according to The Universal History of the World. The basic cause of the war? "The hatred of Catholic for Protestant, of Protestant for Catholic."

And such types of wars continue to this day. Religion has often been the cause of suffering, due to religious zeal and intolerance as a result of the bible' influence on these people.

20 By this time, Christendom had begun to expand beyond Europe, carrying "Christian" civilization into other parts of the earth. This military expansion was marked by cruelty and greed. In the Americas, the Spanish conquistadores quickly destroyed the indigenous American civilizations. Noted one history book: "In general, the Spanish governors destroyed the native civilization, without introducing the European. The thirst for gold was the principal motive that drew them to the New World."

Historically correct.

21 Protestant missionaries also went out from Europe to other continents. One of the results of their work was the promotion of colonial expansion. A widespread view today of the Protestant missionary effort is: "In many instances the missionary enterprise has been used as a justification and a cover for the domination of people. The interrelation between mission, technology, and imperialism is well known."

A point that could be argued by some, when you get into motives, but I tend to agree with this paragraph.

22 The close association between Christendom's religions and the state has continued down to our day. The last two world wars were fought primarily between "Christian" nations. Clergymen on both sides encouraged their young men to fight and try to kill the enemy -- who often belonged to the same religion. As was noted in the book If the Churches Want World Peace: "Certainly it is no credit to [the churches] that the war system of today grew up and has worked its greatest havoc among states devoted to the cause of Christianity."

Again, devotion to the Bible has, historically, led to hatred of those who do not follow it, or even those who don't follow it the way they feel it should be followed. As Jehovah's Witnesses, we felt the same way toward others, ostensibly loving them, but also waiting for them to be destroyed by God for not acting the way we feel the Bible says we should act. This is a common viewpoint throughout history and, as stated above, a prime reason why many turn away from the Bible.

The Word of God Survives

23 We recount this long, sad history of Christendom to highlight two points. First, such events are a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. It was foretold that many claiming to be Christian would bring reproach on the Bible and the name of Christianity, and the fact that this has happened vindicates the Bible as being true. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that the conduct of Christendom does not represent Bible-based Christianity.

This is such a universal occurrence among belief systems, it was quite easy for Bible writers to make this claim and have it come true. The miracle would have been if this had not happened!

As for representing Bible-based Christianity, the WTS encourages the same condemned thinking. This idea of a warrior God destroying all your enemies is not far removed from Christendom's crusades. The only difference is you have God doing the killing for you, instead of you doing the killing "for God".

24 The way genuine Christians can be recognized was explained by Jesus himself: "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) Further, Jesus said: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." (John 17:16) On both counts, Christendom betrays itself as clearly not representing Bible Christianity. It claims to be the Bible's friend, but it has been a false friend.

Christendom rightly deserves condemnation for its actions and failures. This is an easy target.

25 The second point is this: In view of the fact that Christendom as a whole has acted so much against the interests of the Bible, it is remarkable, indeed, that the book has survived until today and still exercises a good influence on many people's lives. The Bible has survived bitter opposition to translating it, onslaughts from modernistic scholars, and the unchristian conduct of its false friend, Christendom. Why? Because the Bible is unlike any other written work. The Bible cannot die. It is the Word of God, and the Bible itself tells us: "The grass withers, the flowers fade, but the word of our God endures for evermore." -- Isaiah 40:8, The New English Bible.

The final leap of logic. Even though no point has been made that would demonstrate or prove the Bible is God's word, the WTS leaps to that conclusion as if it had. This chapter really just focused on the failure of people who claim to follow the Bible but really focus on their own agendas.

Here's another way of looking at this argument. The WTS has presented a historically correct case of how the Bible has been used throughout history as a tool to corrupt, control and manipulate. It has been used to justify and rationalize some of the most bloody wars in history. Zealous adherence to it has bred hateful intolerance. These are the fruitages of the Bible's survival to our day. Not the sort of conclusion you would hope for? Yet there it is, in this chapter.

As for the Bible surviving great odds, it was shown last week that this is true of other religious writings, and therefore not a unique occurrence.

Rebuttal of Chapter 4: How Believable is the "Old Testament"?

Posted by Seeker on May 26, 1998


This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 4: "How Believable Is the "Old Testament"?"

Chapter 4

How Believable Is the "Old Testament"?

An ancient city is under siege. Its attackers have swarmed across the Jordan River and are now encamped before the city's high walls. But what strange battle tactics! Each day for six days, the invading army has marched around the city, silent except for an accompanying group of priests blowing on horns. Now, on the seventh day, the army silently marches around the city seven times. Suddenly, the priests blow their horns with all their might. The army breaks its silence with a mighty battle cry, and the towering city walls collapse in a cloud of dust, leaving the city defenseless. -- Joshua 6:1-21.

2 This is how the book of Joshua, the sixth book of the Hebrew Scriptures, describes the fall of Jericho that occurred almost 3,500 years ago. But did it really happen? Many higher critics would confidently answer no. They claim that the book of Joshua, along with the previous five books of the Bible, is made up of legends written up many centuries after the alleged events took place. Many archaeologists would also answer no. According to them, when the Israelites came into the land of Canaan, Jericho may not even have existed.

The Hebrew Scriptures are filled with accounts (like the above) of Jehovah's leading the Israelites to victory over their enemies, but this is not unique to the Bible; the literature of surrounding nations tells of gods who led their people to victory too. The Moabite Stone recorded the victories that the god Chemosh had led Mesha, a Moabite king mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4, to win over his enemies.

If Christians are to accept such stories in the Bible as literal truths, on what basis do they give the Bible a privileged status? Should this status not likewise be shared with the literature of other nations contemporary to biblical times, that also make such incredible claims? Since belief in the supernatural was commonplace back then, obviously the literature of the times reflected that belief. The Jewish historian Josephus (a historian often quoted by the WTS) wrote many accounts of supernatural events, some supportive of biblical writings, and others independent of the Bible. Are we to accept only the supernatural accounts in the Bible and dismiss all the rest? Why? On what basis? And what of the supernatural actions performed by the god of Chemosh, as recorded on the Moabite Stone -- are we to accept these or dismiss them?

3 These are serious charges. As you read through the Bible, you will notice that its teachings are solidly linked to history. God deals with real men, women, families, and nations, and his commands are given to a historical people. Modern scholars who cast doubt on the historicity of the Bible cast doubt also on the importance and reliability of its message. If the Bible really is God's Word, then its history must be trustworthy and not contain mere legends and myths. Do these critics have grounds for challenging its historical truthfulness?

We see the ground is set. "Higher critics" are all lumped together as if they were one. They are all given suspicious motives, as will be seen even more clearly later on. And the black-and-white type of argument that the Society likes to reduce everything to has been raised.

When the WTS infers that miraculous biblical events happened, what proof do they offer? Can it even be proved? Perhaps they think that by poking holes at their critics' arguments this will somehow prove that these events took place. Think about it, can they or anybody else prove that this or any other miraculous event recorded in the Bible (or in any other contemporary writing for that matter) ever took place?

How do you evaluate a claim of which there is no firsthand knowledge?

Consider this method:

"When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen."(Lofmark, Carl. What Is the Bible? pp. 41-42)

So let us see if the WTS does, indeed, provide evidence to back up their claims...

Higher Criticism -- How Reliable?

4 Higher criticism of the Bible got started in earnest during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the latter half of the 19th century, the German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen popularized the theory that the first six books of the Bible, including Joshua, were written in the fifth century B.C.E. -- about a thousand years after the events described. He did say, though, that they contained material that had been written down earlier. This theory was printed in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1911, which explained: "Genesis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language, style and religious standpoint."

It is interesting to note that Wellhausen is the only higher critic referenced in this chapter, as if he stands for all of "higher criticism" and if you just answer him, you have answered all. This is, of course, far too simplistic.

5 Wellhausen and his followers viewed all the history recorded in the earlier part of the Hebrew Scriptures as "not literal history, but popular traditions of the past." The earlier accounts were considered to be merely a reflection of the later history of Israel. For example, it was stated that the enmity between Jacob and Esau did not really happen, but it reflected the enmity between the nations of Israel and Edom in later times.

Are any of Wellhausen's reasons for this belief given? No. Instead the Society holds out his ideas, without any backing, in order for them to be mocked by an audience of Witnesses who don't feel the same way. This is a way of reducing Wellhausen's influence by making him look silly. Of course, if the Society actually included Wellhausen's reasons for believing this, his views would make sense, even if you disagreed with him. But if they are going to bring out these issues in the first place, why is the Society afraid to bring out the reasons behind the issues?

6 In harmony with this, these critics felt that Moses never received any commandment to make the ark of the covenant and that the tabernacle, center of Israelite worship in the wilderness, never existed. They also believed that the authority of the Aaronic priesthood was fully established only a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, which the critics believed happened at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.E.

Why do "these critics" believe this? Do you know? The Society certainly isn't telling. And they know most of the friends will never bother doing any research to find out. They assume that the Society is telling them all there is to know. Note this next paragraph, for example:

7 What "proof" did they have for these ideas? Higher critics claim to be able to divide the text of the early books of the Bible into a number of different documents. A basic principle they use is to assume that, generally speaking, any Bible verse using the Hebrew word for God ('Elohim') on its own was written by one writer, while any verse referring to God by his name, Jehovah, must have been written by another -- as if one writer could not use both terms.

This is quite insidious. The paragraph begins with a question, implying they are going to now give us Wellhausen's side of the story on all the issues raised earlier, namely that the Pentateuch was written much later than thought, that enmity between Esau and Jacob never happened, nor did the ark or the tabernacle happen, or that the priesthood was set up in early days. After making this implication, what do they do? Give one, only one, reason Wellhausen had for theorizing one, only one, of the above issues (the Pentateuch being written later).

8 Similarly, anytime an event is recorded more than once in a book, it is taken as proof of more than one writer at work, even though ancient Semitic literature has other similar examples of repetition. Additionally, it is assumed that any change of style means a change of writer. Yet, even modern-language writers often write in different styles at different stages in their careers, or when they are dealing with different subject matter.

Now a second reason, very simply stated, is given for the same issue, and again all the other issues and reasons are ignored. Any Witness reading these paragraphs is going to thing "Ha! What a stupid idea, that because sometimes it says Elohim and sometimes it says Jehovah that this means Esau didn't have enmity with Jacob. Absurd! What was this Wellhausen guy thinking??? Oh well, we can sure dismiss this nutcase..."

There is much more to what Wellhausen theorized than what the Society is letting on here. I will list some references you can check later on. For now, let's notice what the Society does next:

9 Is there any real proof for these theories? Not at all. One commentator noted: "Criticism, even at its best, is speculative and tentative, something always liable to be modified or proved wrong and having to be replaced by something else. It is an intellectual exercise, subject to all the doubts and guesses which are inseparable from such exercises." Biblical higher criticism, especially, is "speculative and tentative" in the extreme.

What the commentator noted is correct, and there is nothing wrong with such exercises. This is how learning proceeds, step by step, with mistakes made and corrected along the way. But what proof does the Society give for that last sentence? Why is Biblical higher criticism so much more "speculative and tentative" than other kinds of higher criticism? They don't say, leaving one to assume it is a personal and emotional opinion. That last sentence from the Society is "an intellectual exercise, subject to all the doubts and guesses which are inseparable from such exercises."

10 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., shows another flaw in the reasoning of higher criticism. The problem, he says, is that "the Wellhausen school started with the pure assumption (which they have hardly bothered to demonstrate) that Israel's religion was of merely human origin like any other, and that it was to be explained as a mere product of evolution." In other words, Wellhausen and his followers started with the assumption that the Bible was merely the word of man, and then they reasoned from there.

Ah, now the Society turns to a seemingly impartial observer in order to support their cause that Wellhausen didn't know what he was doing. What reason does Archer give? That Wellhausen began with an assumption that Israel's religion was of human origin.

So what? Does not the Society, in this book, start with the assumption that Israel's religion was of divine origin? Why is this OK, but Wellhausen's assumption is not?

Scientists in every field follow a standardized, objective approach to answer questions. One starts with a hypothesis, then through a series of tests, experiments, studies, etc. that hypothesis is challenged and tested. Based on the results of such experiments and tests, the hypothesis will either stand on firm ground, be modified or possibly be completely discarded in the light of new evidence. Unfortunately, the WTS does not follow this standard, unbiased approach. They do begin with their hypothesis, that the Bible is God's word, but then they set out to prove that their hypothesis is correct, rather than impartially examining all the available evidence and then letting the evidence draw the proper conclusions. Ask yourself why they act this way. Why do they ignore much of the evidence?

As for Mr. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., just who is he? The Society doesn't say, leaving one to assume he is some impartial critic. Who is he? Well, if you do a web search on him, you will find he is not impartial at all. He is, in fact, a religious evangelical Christian who writes books in behalf of the Bible being of divine origin. So Mr. Archer certainly has a few assumptions that he begins with!

Let's get this straight: If you start with an assumption that the Society agrees with, they quote you in support of themselves. If you start with an assumption that the Society disagrees with, they tear you down as 'prejudiced'. Just where is the prejudice in this picture?

Mr. Archer would never be quoted in the Trinity brochure, by the way, for he also wrote the following:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking here, not in His Divine nature as God the Son, but in His human nature, as the Son of Man. Christ came to suffer and die, not as God, who can do neither, but as the second Adam, born of Mary. Only as the Son of Man could he serve as Messiah, or Christ (the Anointed One). Unless He could take Himself a true and genuine human nature, He could never have represented Adam's race as Sin-Bearer at the Cross. But as the Son of Man, He certainly was lower in station than God the Father. As Isaiah 52:13-53:12 makes clear, He could only become our Savior by becoming the Servant of Yahweh. The servant by definition can never be as great as his master. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer, p. 375, 1982)"

Mr. Archer seems to believe in the Trinity and the cross, not assumptions the Society would be comfortable with, wouldn't you say? Does he sound like the most impartial person to judge Wellhausen?

The Society also quotes another reference on this subject:

11 Back in 1909, The Jewish Encyclopedia noted two more weaknesses in the Wellhausian theory: "The arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India."

As Wellhausen was theorizing that much of Jewish tradition was incorrect, it would not be surprising that The Jewish Encyclopedia would find this concept threatening, and try to find examples to fight it. Again, not the most impartial of observers.

12 Is there any way of testing higher criticism to see whether its theories are correct or not? The Jewish Encyclopedia went on to say: "Wellhausen's views are based almost exclusively on literal analysis, and will need to be supplemented by an examination from the point of view of institutional archeology." As the years went by, did archaeology tend to confirm Wellhausen's theories? The New Encyclopædia Britannica answers: "Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts [the historical records in the earliest books of the Bible] are merely the reflection of a much later period."

It would not be surprising that archaeological developments over the past hundred years have added much more knowledge in this area. Such new knowledge would update any theories on the subject, including Wellhausen's. Does this mean Wellhausen has now been discredited? The Society makes it seem that way. Does everyone agree? No, not really. Note this reference, as taught at the University of California at Santa Barbara today:

"In 1878 Julius Wellhausen, a German scholar, proposed a theory to account for the construction of the Pentateuch, or Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Wellhausen and others before him had noticed various discontinuities, repetitions, and occasional contradictions in the narrative of the books. His theory, generally called the Documentary Hypothesis, attempted to account for these. Though it has generated controversy and several competing theories over the past century, no other explanation has commanded the same continuous attention, and some version of the Documentary Hypothesis is accepted by nearly all biblical scholars today."

Hmmmm... it seems that Wellhausen's ideas are not as discredited as the Society would have you believe. In fact, they form the basis for much of what "all" biblical scholars accept today! Are all biblical scholars prejudiced, and only the Society is right? Is it really that black-and-white? Why not do some research on your own and see for yourself. For more information on the Documentary Hypothesis, including it's development through the centuries, and the way it is actually viewed today, see this link.

This is from the University of Santa Clara, and it very clearly and simply describes the ideas that Wellhausen discussed, and how it has been viewed and developed to our day. Things are not quite as simple as the Society makes it seem.

13 In view of its weakness, why is higher criticism so popular among intellectuals today? Because it tells them things that they want to hear. One 19th-century scholar explained: "Personally, I welcomed this book of Wellhausen's more than almost any other; for the pressing problem of the history of the Old Testament appeared to me to be at last solved in a manner consonant to the principle of human evolution which I am compelled to apply to the history of all religion." Evidently, higher criticism agreed with his prejudices as an evolutionist. And, indeed, the two theories serve a similar end. Just as evolution would remove the need to believe in a Creator, so Wellhausen's higher criticism would mean that one does not have to believe that the Bible was inspired by God.

Here we see the Society make a judgment call. All higher critics can be lumped together and thrown out because obviously they all have bad motives. They even quote a guy from a hundred years ago and apply this to every higher critic since then. That certainly proves it!

In fact, as you study higher criticism, you will see that motives vary widely, and that conclusions reached are not as universal as the Society pretends it is. Once again, if you only read what the Society feeds you, you will never know the real extent of the issue.

14 In this rationalistic 20th century, the assumption that the Bible is not God's word but man's looks plausible to intellectuals. It is much easier for them to believe that prophecies were written after their fulfillment than to accept them as genuine. They prefer to explain away the Bible accounts of miracles as myths, legends, or folk tales, rather than consider the possibility that they really happened. But such a viewpoint is prejudiced and gives no solid reason to reject the Bible as true. Higher criticism is seriously flawed, and its assault on the Bible has failed to demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God.

Another judgment call. Higher critics are prejudiced against the Bible. Of course, the Society is just as prejudiced, but for the Bible, so does that mean we must throw out their viewpoint too? If not, why not? Because they tell you what you want to hear?

Besides, if you don't approach the Bible from a "rational" point of view, what does that mean? That you should approach the Bible irrationally? What are they really telling us here?

Their last sentence is, of course, highly subjective, and would be debated by many. Certainly nothing presented in this chapter gives any weight to their argument. They presented things in far too simplistic a manner. Higher criticism is far more reaching, with much more credible reasons, than the Society even hints at here. Why don't they take on these arguments? This is the book of all books where these arguments should be dealt with, and yet they just gloss over the subject and move on. Have you asked yourself why they avoid this issue?

The WTS began this chapter with the question "Do these critics have grounds for challenging its historical truthfulness?" Do you think the WTS has honestly and impartially attempted to answer this question? Have they examined and presented all the evidence and carefully weighed it? Or have they simply extracted the information required to support their pre-conceived conclusions, namely that higher criticism is "prejudiced", "seriously flawed", and "failed to demonstrate the Bible is not God's Word"?

Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

15 Archaeology is a much more solidly based field of study than higher criticism. Archaeologists, by digging among the remains of past civilizations, have in many ways increased our understanding of the way things were in ancient times. Hence, it is not surprising that the archaeological record repeatedly harmonizes with what we read in the Bible. Sometimes, archaeology has even vindicated the Bible against its critics.

And sometimes archaeology has contradicted the Bible completely. See, for example, archaeological evidence regarding evolution, or the idea of a Global Flood, at https://www.talkorigins.org/

16 For example, according to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son? Belshazzar.

17 So there was a Belshazzar! Was he a king, though, when Babylon fell? Most documents subsequently found referred to him as the son of the king, the crown prince. But a cuneiform document described as the "Verse Account of Nabonidus" shed more light on Belshazzar's true position. It reported: "He [Nabonidus] entrusted the 'Camp' to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him." So Belshazzar was entrusted with the kingship. Surely, to all intents and purposes that made him a king! This relationship between Belshazzar and his father, Nabonidus, explains why Belshazzar, during that final banquet in Babylon, offered to make Daniel the third ruler in the kingdom. (Daniel 5:16) Since Nabonidus was the first ruler, Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler of Babylon.

Uh, that's it? Just Belshazzar? That's not much to go on, but the fact that some people erroneously thought Belshazzar didn't exist doesn't prove all that much. When you write about a place it helps to include real details. That is what the author of Daniel did. The Koran writes about real places and people too.

Since we're using the archaeological evidence to support one character referred to in the book of Daniel, why not impartially present and examine all the archaeological findings related to that same book. What have archaeologists discovered? They have found so many discrepancies between archaeology and the book of Daniel that they have pieced together a very different history of Babylon from archaeological records recovered in the last century and a half.

So far, there isn't much here. Most of this first half was devoted to higher criticism, but instead of dealing with this, the Society merely picked on Wellhausen and did so in the most narrow of ways. If you take the time to read those web references, you will see that this subject is far from closed.

Other Supporting Evidence

18 Indeed, many archaeological discoveries have demonstrated the historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, the Bible reports that after King Solomon had taken over the kingship from his father, David, Israel enjoyed great prosperity. We read: "Judah and Israel were many, like the grains of sand that are by the sea for multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing." (1 Kings 4:20) In support of this statement, we read: "Archaeological evidence reveals that there was a population explosion in Judah during and after the tenth century B.C. when the peace and prosperity David brought made it possible to build many new towns."

Historical accuracy is not the same as proof of divine authorship. When a person wishes to ground their story in reality, they set their tales in historical settings and they get the details right. Shakespeare, for instance, set his fictional works in very real settings and circumstances. This is not to say the Bible is a work of fiction. I am merely making the point that just because a written work contains historical accuracy it does not necessarily follow that this work is divinely inspired.

19 Later on, Israel and Judah became two nations, and Israel conquered the neighboring land of Moab. At one time Moab, under King Mesha, revolted, and Israel formed an alliance with Judah and the neighboring kingdom of Edom to war against Moab. (2 Kings 3:4-27) Remarkably, in 1868 in Jordan, a stela (a carved stone slab) was discovered that was inscribed in the Moabite language with Mesha's own account of this conflict.

Why is this considered remarkable?

20 Then, in the year 740 B.C.E., God allowed the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed by the Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:6-18) Speaking of the Bible account of this event, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments: "One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole." But is it? She adds: "The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record.... The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating."

There is much of Israel's history contained in the Bible. Typically, the later in history you go in the Bible, the more accurate and less fanciful the accounts become. For instance, the time-period thousands of years ago is referred to in the Bible as a time of giants and fire from heaven and a global flood. As time goes on, however, the account becomes more rooted in reality until you come to time-periods, such as the eighth-century B.C.E., which contain actual history. Giants and fires from heaven cannot be verified from secular historical sources. Invasions by Assyria can.

Far from indicating a divine source, such progress from fanciful accounts to historical accounts is evidence of typical human embellishment.

21 Later still, the Bible tells us that Jerusalem under King Jehoiachin was besieged by the Babylonians and was defeated. This event is recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle, a cuneiform tablet discovered by archaeologists. On this, we read: "The king of Akkad [Babylon] ... laid siege to the city of Judah (iahudu) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru." Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon and imprisoned. But later, according to the Bible, he was released from prison and given an allowance of food. (2 Kings 24:8-15; 25:27-30) This is supported by administrative documents found in Babylon, which list the rations given to "Yaukîn, king of Judah."

Again, why is this considered remarkable? Of course Jerusalem fell to Babylon. This is attested to by history as well as the Bible. The Hebrew scriptures, after all, form much of the ancient history of the Jewish people. We should not be surprised to find historical details that match secular sources.

22 Regarding the relationship between archaeology and the Bible's historical accounts, Professor David Noel Freedman commented: "In general, however, archaeology has tended to support the historical validity of the biblical narrative. The broad chronological outline from the patriarchs to N[ew] T[estament] times correlates with archaeological data.... Future discoveries are likely to sustain the present moderate position that the biblical tradition is historically rooted, and faithfully transmitted, though it is not history in the critical or scientific sense."

Did you notice how many vague words are used in this quote? 'In general', 'has tended', 'broad...outline', etc. This quote, taken from a 1959 edition of a book, realistically acknowledges, implicitly, that not all archaeological discoveries have supported the biblical record. Indeed, if you study this subject, you will see that there are numerous examples of archaeology contradicting the Bible accounts.

23 Then, regarding the efforts of higher critics to discredit the Bible, he says: "Attempted reconstructions of biblical history by modern scholars -- e.g., Wellhausen's view that the patriarchal age was a reflex of the divided monarchy; or the rejection of the historicity of Moses and the exodus and consequent restructuring of Israelite history by Noth and his followers -- have not survived the archaeological data as well as the biblical narrative."

Freedman takes the fact that adjustments have been made to Wellhausen's views to imply that those views are now discredited, whereas the Bible's views have been upheld. The actual facts are just the opposite, as any research on the subject will show.

In fact, archaeological discoveries have shown the Bible to be not as accurate as the Society would have us believe. Notice how they try to deal with this dilemma in the next subheading.

The Fall of Jericho

24 Does this mean that archaeology agrees with the Bible in every case? No, there are a number of disagreements. One is the dramatic conquest of Jericho described in the beginning of this chapter. According to the Bible, Jericho was the first city conquered by Joshua as he led the Israelites into the land of Canaan. Bible chronology indicates that the city fell in the first half of the 15th century B.C.E. After the conquest, Jericho was completely burned with fire and was then left uninhabited for hundreds of years. -- Joshua 6:1-26; 1 Kings 16:34.

25 Before the second world war, the site believed to be Jericho was excavated by Professor John Garstang. He discovered that the city was very ancient and had been destroyed and rebuilt many times. Garstang found that during one of these destructions, the walls fell as if by earthquake, and the city was completely burned with fire. Garstang believed that this took place in about 1400 B.C.E., not too distant from the Biblically indicated date for the destruction of Jericho by Joshua.

Garstang's work was contested at the time as relying on evidence that did not support his conclusions. The press, however, went with the sensationalistic story and publicized Garstang's findings as proof the Bible was accurate. The facts turned out otherwise:

26 After the war, another archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, did further excavations at Jericho. She came to the conclusion that the collapsed walls Garstang had identified dated from hundreds of years earlier than he thought. She did identify a major destruction of Jericho in the 16th century B.C.E. but said that there was no city on the site of Jericho during the 15th century -- when the Bible says Joshua was invading the land. She goes on to report possible indications of another destruction that might have taken place on the site in 1325 B.C.E. and suggests: "If the destruction of Jericho is to be associated with an invasion under Joshua, this [latter] is the date that archaeology suggests."

I invite you to read an account of these findings at this link.

There you will see that things are not as murky as the Society makes it sound in paragraph 26. In fact, several archaeologists have independently found that Jericho was destroyed around 2400 B.C.E. and was, at best, a small village by the time Joshua came along, making a conquest unnecessary.

Even if the last sentence of paragraph 26 is used as a way to weasel out of the archaeological embarrassment, things are still bad for students of the Bible. 1325 B.C.E. is still way off, and would wipe out much of the biblical historical record.

27 Does this mean that the Bible is wrong? Not at all. We have to remember that while archaeology gives us a window to the past, it is not always a clear window. Sometimes it is decidedly murky. As one commentator noted: "Archaeological evidence is, unfortunately, fragmentary, and therefore limited." Especially is this true of the earlier periods of Israelite history, when archaeological evidence is not clear. Indeed, the evidence is even less clear at Jericho, since the site has been badly eroded.

This quote comes from Biblical Archaeology Review, not the most impartial of observers on this topic. One well-known biblical archaeologist, George Wright, is quoted as saying that biblical archaeology was to be used for apologetical purposes:

"The Biblical archaeologist may or may not be an excavator himself, but he studies the discoveries of the excavations in order to glean from them every fact that throws a direct, indirect or even diffused light upon the Bible. He must be intelligently concerned with stratigraphy and typology, upon which the methodology of modern archaeology rests .... Yet his chief concern is not with methods or pots or weapons in themselves alone. His central and absorbing interest is the understanding and exposition of the Scriptures."--Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, by William G. Dever, p. 18.

As usual, when evidence is found that contradicts the Bible, the Society resorts to saying bad things about the field in question. If archaeology consistently supported the Bible, the Society would universally praise the field. Because it sometimes contradicts the Bible, the Society cautions us that this field is not too reliable.

The end result? Just believe the Bible no matter what the evidence says. Not a very compelling proof.

The Limitations of Archaeology

28 Archaeologists themselves admit the limitations of their science. Yohanan Aharoni, for example, explains: "When it comes to historical or historio-geographical interpretation, the archaeologist steps out of the realm of the exact sciences, and he must rely upon value judgements and hypotheses to arrive at a comprehensive historical picture." Regarding the dates assigned to various discoveries, he adds: "We must always remember, therefore, that not all dates are absolute and are in varying degrees suspect," although he feels that today's archaeologists can be more confident of their dating than was the case in the past.

So now the Society implies bad motives on the part of archaeologists everywhere, saying that they must rely on value judgements, and the implication being that their values are suspect. Then they put a quote that implies dates being suspect, and then cuts off the quote before we hear in detail what Mr. Aharoni thinks about dates used by today's archaeologists. It would appear he thought modern dates are fairly accurate. It's good to remember that he died in 1976, so this quote is already over 20 years old, and thus archaeologists can be said to have even more accurate information today. This does not bode well for biblical historical accuracy.

29The World of the Old Testament asks the question: "How objective or truly scientific is the archaeological method?" It answers: "Archaeologists are more objective when unearthing the facts than when interpreting them. But their human preoccupations will affect the methods they use in making the 'dig,' too. They cannot help destroying their evidence as they dig down through the layers of earth, so they can never test their 'experiment' by repeating it. This makes archaeology unique among the sciences. Moreover, it makes archaeological reporting a most demanding and pitfall-ridden task."

More implications that we just can't trust those archaeologists! Of course, while what the quote says is true, it hardly stops the Society from quoting archaeologists whenever it suits them. And it hardly stops people in general from placing great confidence in archaeological discoveries and interpretations. Archaeologists have limitations to deal with, but they have learned to overcome those limitations very well.

Ask yourself why the Society quotes archaeologists without question when they find something that supports the Bible, and then downplays any discovery that contradicts the Bible. Did their methods suddenly fail them on the latter cases? Or should the Society apply the same level of skepticism to findings that support the Bible, just to be fair and consistent? After all, we have just been given several paragraphs telling us how unreliable archaeology is.

30 So archaeology can be very helpful, but like any human endeavor, it is fallible. While we consider archaeological theories with interest, we should never view them as incontrovertible truth. If archaeologists interpret their findings in a way that contradicts the Bible, it should not automatically be assumed that the Bible is wrong and the archaeologists are right. Their interpretations have been known to change.

And if archaeologists interpret their findings in a way that supports the Bible, should we not then automatically assume the Bible is right? Should we continue to be skeptical of these findings in those cases too? Or is it all right to pick and choose what you want to believe?

31 It is interesting to note that in 1981 Professor John J. Bimson looked again at the destruction of Jericho. He studied closely the fiery destruction of Jericho that took place -- according to Kathleen Kenyon -- in the middle of the 16th century B.C.E. According to him, not only did that destruction fit the Bible's account of Joshua's destruction of the city but the archaeological picture of Canaan as a whole fit perfectly with the Bible's description of Canaan when the Israelites invaded. Hence, he suggests that the archaeological dating is wrong and proposes that this destruction really took place in the middle of the 15th century B.C.E., during Joshua's lifetime.

Professor Bimson, is, of course, a Christian author who would have much to lose if archaeology disproved the Bible account. It would not be surprising to find that he would like to repudiate the Kenyon (and others) findings. Of course, this doesn't change the consensus, but as long as the Society can find one member of Christendom to say something that they want to hear, they will quote him.

The Bible Is Genuine History

32 This illustrates the fact that archaeologists often differ among themselves. It is not, then, surprising that some disagree with the Bible while others agree with it. Nevertheless, some scholars are coming to respect the historicity of the Bible in general, if not in every detail. William Foxwell Albright represented one school of thought when he wrote: "There has been a general return to appreciation of the accuracy, both in general sweep and in factual detail, of the religious history of Israel.... To sum up, we can now again treat the Bible from beginning to end as an authentic document of religious history."

Do archaeologists differ? Of course, especially when you have some of them being biblical archaeologists with an axe to grind! Christendom taught for centuries that the sun revolved around the earth. When astronomers finally showed that this was wrong, there were other astronomers at the time who disagreed, saying things to please the Church. Did the fact that astronomers were 'differing among themselves' at time mean that the earth really didn't revolve around the sun? Of course not! As long as you have people who are pressing for a particular point of view, no matter what the facts show, you will always find conflict among those who just look for facts.

Mr. Albright is well-known for working from an assumption (the Bible is true and inerrant), and looking for findings to fit those assumptions. As such, he has long been repudiated, as you will see if you read the article as the web site referred to above. People who act this way (from an assumption, not from the facts) have been condemned by the Society, yet here they resort to quoting this repudiated biblical apologist.

33 In fact, the Bible in itself bears the stamp of accurate history. Events are linked to specific times and dates, unlike those of most ancient myths and legends. Many events recorded in the Bible are supported by inscriptions dating from those times. Where there is a difference between the Bible and some ancient inscription, the discrepancy can often be attributed to the ancient rulers' distaste for recording their own defeats and their desire to magnify their successes.

General hand-waving now, as all of the problems that remain get ignored. Although many events are linked to specific times and dates, not all are, and many such dates have been repudiated by modern findings. It's worth the effort to do a little research and see how much the Society is covering over in this chapter.

34 Indeed, many of those ancient inscriptions are not history as much as they are official propaganda. In contrast, the Bible writers display a rare frankness. Major ancestral figures such as Moses and Aaron are revealed with all their weaknesses and strengths. Even the failings of the great king David are honestly revealed. The shortcomings of the nation as a whole are repeatedly exposed. This candor recommends the Hebrew Scriptures as truthful and reliable and lends weight to the words of Jesus, who, when praying to God, said: "Your word is truth." -- John 17:17.

Frankness does exist in the Bible, but so does Israelite propaganda and bragging, well out of proportion to their actual historical significance. Furthermore, the Bible is hardly the only written record that notes failings and weaknesses.

35 Albright went on to say: "In any case the Bible towers in content above all earlier religious literature; and it towers just as impressively over all subsequent literature in the direct simplicity of its message and the catholicity [comprehensive range] of its appeal to men of all lands and times." It is this 'towering message,' rather than the testimony of scholars, that proves the inspiration of the Bible, as we will see in later chapters. But let us note here that modern rationalistic thinkers have failed to prove that the Hebrew Scriptures are not true history, while these writings themselves give every evidence of being accurate. Can the same be said for the Christian Greek Scriptures, the "New Testament"? We will consider this in the next chapter.

So since the testimony of scholars sure didn't work to prove the Bible is God's word, the Society now drops back to what? Someone's emotional view of its 'towering content'? Someone who started with the assumption that the Bible is God's word is certainly going to have a warm emotional view of it, but how does this "prove" inspiration of the Bible?

As for 'modern rationalistic thinkers' not proving that the Hebrew Scriptures are not true history, what the Society means is that they don't care for their proof. The fact is that there are many findings that contradict the historical accuracy of the Bible, but the Society tries to ignore those.

Finally, the Hebrew writings themselves do not give every evidence of being accurate, as this chapter alone shows several inaccuracies that have surfaced. The Society may wish to ignore those inaccuracies, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Rebuttal of Chapter 5: The "New Testament" — History or Myth?

Posted by Seeker on June 2, 1998


This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 5: "The "New Testament" -- History or Myth?"

Chapter 5

The "New Testament" -- History or Myth?

The conclusions reached by some investigators have been bizarre. Back in the 19th century, Ludwig Noack in Germany concluded that the Gospel of John was written in 60 C.E. by the beloved disciple -- who, according to Noack, was Judas! The Frenchman Joseph Ernest Renan suggested that the resurrection of Lazarus was likely a fraud arranged by Lazarus himself to support Jesus' claim of being a miracle worker, while the German theologian Gustav Volkmar insisted that the historical Jesus could not possibly have come forward with Messianic claims.

2 Bruno Bauer, on the other hand, decided that Jesus never existed at all! "He maintained that the real creative forces in early Christianity were Philo, Seneca, and the Gnostics. In the end he declared that there never had been a historical Jesus ... that the genesis of the Christian religion was late in the second century and was from a Judaism in which Stoicism had become dominant."

3 Today, few hold such extreme ideas. But if you read the works of modern scholars, you will find many still believe that the Christian Greek Scriptures contain legend, myth, and exaggeration. Is this true?

An interesting start to the chapter. The Society begins with ridicule. Note the way they used exclamation marks to make it seem as if they were dealing with absurd ideas. Note the words 'bizarre' and 'extreme' in describing such viewpoints. Why is such a prejudicial presentation needed? If the ideas are, indeed, bizarre, won't that be obvious to the reader? Why resort to the name-calling of these three paragraphs?

Note the proper way to deal with controversial subject matters, as demonstrated by Professor Thomas H. Huxley in his essay "Agnosticism":

"See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, ... the remarkable monograph by Prof. Volkmar, "Jesus Nazarenus und die erste Christliche Zeit" (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which they adopt is unimpeachable."

Here Gustav Volkmar is mentioned, and Huxley points out that you may not agree with him, but at least you must respect they way he went about his investigations. This is a much more respectful way to deal with controversial topics.

When Were They Written?

4 It takes time for myths and legends to develop. So the question, When were these books written?, is important. Michael Grant, a historian, says that the historical writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures were begun "thirty or forty years after Jesus' death." Biblical archaeologist William Foxwell Albright cited C. C. Torrey as concluding "that all the Gospels were written before 70 A.D. and that there is nothing in them which could not have been written within twenty years of the Crucifixion." Albright's own opinion was that their writing was completed "not later than about 80 A.D." Others come up with slightly different estimates, but most agree that the writing of the "New Testament" was completed by the end of the first century.

5 What does this mean? Albright concludes: "All we can say is that a period of between twenty and fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus." Professor Gary Habermas adds: "The Gospels are quite close to the period of time which they record, while ancient histories often describe events which took place centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully derive the events even from these ancient periods of time."

6 In other words, the historical parts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are worthy of at least as much credence as secular histories. Certainly, in the few decades between the events of early Christianity and their being recorded in writing, there was no time for myths and legends to develop and be universally accepted.

No, that first sentence of paragraph 6 is not true. They are reaching a conclusion that is not supported by the quote they refer to in paragraph 5. You can argue that the gospels were written close enough to the events described as to compare favorably with the timetable of other secular historical accounts. But it does not then follow that the gospel histories are worthy of as much credence as secular histories. If, for example, the secular histories do not contain talk of miracles, then they are worthy of much more credence.

As for the second sentence in paragraph 6, this is an unsupported statement. There was plenty of time for myths and legends to develop in a few decades. Consider that when Jesus died, there were only a few dozen followers. Now their leader is dead, they face the hostility of the established religious order and they don't know what to do. What better approach to take but to say that your leader is, in fact, quite alive and has power! They didn't have to be lying, either, for the disciples could well have believed it all, using unrelated scriptures to back up their yearned for beliefs. As they spread this message, fully convinced in their own minds, the myths and legends spread.

Remember, it wasn't as easy to check up on these things back then as it would be today with our pervasive media. If the disciples said Jesus was resurrected, who were they to argue? Their superstitious minds believed that kind of stuff anyway, so it would make sense to them. As one person told the next, the legends could grow. It could easily happen in just a matter of years.

Eyewitness Testimony

7 This is especially true in view of the fact that many of the accounts speak of eyewitness testimony. The writer of the Gospel of John said: "This is the disciple [the disciple that Jesus loved] that bears witness about these things and that wrote these things." (John 21:24) The writer of the book of Luke says: "Those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us." (Luke 1:2) The apostle Paul, speaking of those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, said: "Most of [them] remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death." -- 1 Corinthians 15:6.

Empty claims, really, for who is to say if these were really eyewitnesses or not? They claim they were, but how do we know? If I'm trying to help establish a small religion in the face of hostilities, I would say I had eyewitnesses too! But if you're smart, you'd ask for proof, not just my word on it. With Paul, however, we can't ask him for proof anymore, we just have his word on it. Remember, Paul was not an eyewitness, so all he could do is believe the words of those who said they were.

8 In this connection, Professor F. F. Bruce makes a keen observation: "It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.... The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22)."

Indeed, their words were exposed by those who opposed them! Such has always been the case with religion. Those who believe feel they have the facts on their side. Those who don't believe, gladly point out the contradictions and falsehoods, and the believers blithely ignore this. We have examples of this right in the Bible, with the Jews coming up with alternative explanations for these events. Christians assume the Jews were just jealous, and thus dismiss these charges. Nevertheless, the quote from Professor Bruce ignores the fact that the early Christians did have detractors who pointed out discrepancies in their stories.

Even today, it is quite easy to show contradictions between gospel accounts. So the disciples were, indeed, guilty of inaccuracies, despite what Prof. Bruce thinks.

Is the Text Trustworthy?

9 Is it possible that these eyewitness testimonies were accurately recorded but later corrupted? In other words, were myths and legends introduced after the original writing was completed? We have already seen that the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures is in better condition than any other ancient literature. Kurt and Barbara Aland, scholars of the Greek text of the Bible, list almost 5,000 manuscripts that have survived from antiquity down to today, some from as early as the second century C.E. The general testimony of this mass of evidence is that the text is essentially sound. Additionally, there are many ancient translations -- the earliest dating to about the year 180 C.E. -- that help to prove that the text is accurate.

So with no translations or manuscripts dating back earlier than the second century C.E., the Society admits that what we have today in the Christian Greek Scriptures came to us from apostates. (Remember, the apostasy began in the first century and then bloomed in the second, so those who compiled and copied what we read today were, according to the Society, apostates).

How do we know what may, or may not, have happened to these manuscripts in the hundred or two hundred years from their original writing and the appearance of the oldest known manuscripts today?

When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, they were hailed as confirming the accuracy of the Bible manuscripts, especially Isaiah. Did you know, however, that when other manuscripts were looked at they showed substantial changes? The manuscripts of Jeremiah, for example, were found to have had additions and changes made. Research the Dead Sea scrolls to see for yourself that manuscripts were tampered with. Why could this not also have happened with Christian Greek scriptures, under the care of 'apostates'?

10 Hence, by any reckoning, we can be sure that legends and myths did not infiltrate into the Christian Greek Scriptures after the original writers finished their work. The text we have is substantially the same as the one that the original writers penned, and its accuracy is confirmed by the fact that contemporaneous Christians accepted it. Can we, then, check the historicity of the Bible by comparing it with other ancient histories? To some extent, yes.

Of course the contemporaneous Christians accepted their own scriptures. They wrote the stuff. Only a tiny handful of Christians could have said anything was wrong, for only they had been eyewitnesses. And most of what Jesus said and did could only have been verified by 11 men, so if they wrote down something, what was a contemporaneous Christian to say? That he didn't agree with it? Of course not!

Not too much has been said in this subheading. If one wanted to argue that the early Christians made up most of the gospel accounts, there isn't much in this subheading that would disprove it.

The Documentary Evidence

11 In fact, for events in the lives of Jesus and his apostles, documentary evidence apart from the Bible is quite limited. This is only to be expected, since in the first century, Christians were a relatively small group that did not get involved in politics. But the evidence that secular history does provide agrees with what we read in the Bible.

12 For example, after Herod Antipas suffered a resounding military defeat, the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in 93 C.E., said: "To some of the Jews the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God." Thus Josephus confirms the Bible account that John the Baptizer was a righteous man who preached repentance and who was executed by Herod. -- Matthew 3:1-12; 14:11.

13 Josephus also mentions James, the half brother of Jesus, who, the Bible tells us, did not initially follow Jesus but later became a prominent elder in Jerusalem. (John 7:3-5; Galatians 1:18, 19) He documents James' arrest in these words: "[The high priest Ananus] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others." In writing these words, Josephus additionally confirms that "Jesus, who was called the Christ" was a real, historical person.

14 Other early writers too refer to things mentioned in the Greek Scriptures. For example, the Gospels tell us that Jesus' preaching around Palestine met with a wide response. When he was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, his followers were confused and disheartened. Soon afterward, these same disciples boldly filled Jerusalem with the message that their Lord had been resurrected. In a few years, Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire. -- Matthew 4:25; 26:31; 27:24-26; Acts 2:23, 24, 36; 5:28; 17:6.

15 Witness to the truth of this comes from the Roman historian Tacitus, who was no friend of Christianity. Writing soon after 100 C.E., he tells of Nero's cruel persecution of the Christians and adds: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself."

16 At Acts 18:2 the Bible writer refers to the fact that "[the Roman emperor] Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome." Second-century Roman historian Suetonius also refers to this expulsion. In his work The Deified Claudius, the historian says: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." If Chrestus here refers to Jesus Christ and if the events in Rome followed the pattern in other cities, then the riots were not actually at the instigation of Christ (that is, Christ's followers). Rather, they were the Jews' violent response to the faithful preaching activity of Christians.

17 Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: "That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says: "That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." True, these "Acts," or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

This entire subheading proves nothing more than the fact that the gospels contain some history. Nobody denies that anymore, and it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. If you add some extraneous details to an historical setting, and then someone comes along and verifies that historical setting, it does not then follow that the extraneous details are also true.

If I say that in Los Angeles, in 1998, there was a lot of rain from the weather patterns affected by El Niño, and also Frank Sinatra was raised from the dead, am I telling the truth? If someone comes along 2,000 years later and says "There really was a Los Angeles, and we have records of an unusually rainy 1998, and there really was an historical figure called Sinatra that died that year" does that then prove that I was right in saying he was raised from the dead? Of course not. All I did was put a fanciful story in a realistic setting to make it more believable. So too, the Christian Greek scriptures could be structured in precisely this way, and so far this chapter has done nothing to dispel this idea.

The Archaeological Evidence

18 Archaeological discoveries have also illustrated or confirmed what we read in the Greek Scriptures. Thus, in 1961 the name of Pontius Pilate was found in an inscription in the ruins of a Roman theater at Caesarea. Until this discovery, there had been only limited evidence, apart from the Bible itself, of the existence of this Roman ruler.

So before 1961, there was Biblical and secular evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate. After 1961 there was more secular evidence, no longer "limited" evidence. What does this prove?

19 In Luke's Gospel, we read that John the Baptizer began his ministry "when ... Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene." (Luke 3:1) Some doubted that statement because Josephus mentioned a Lysanias who ruled Abilene and who died in 34 B.C.E., long before the birth of John. However, archaeologists have uncovered an inscription in Abilene mentioning another Lysanias who was tetrarch (district ruler) during the reign of Tiberius, who was ruling as Caesar in Rome when John began his ministry. This could easily have been the Lysanias to whom Luke was referring.

Could be, but why is this significant? We've already seen that the Bible writers used real settings, so why would we be surprised that Luke referred to a real ruler?

20 In Acts we read that Paul and Barnabas were sent to do missionary work in Cyprus and there met up with a proconsul named Sergius Paulus, "an intelligent man." (Acts 13:7) In the middle of the 19th century, excavations in Cyprus uncovered an inscription dating from 55 C.E. that mentions this very man. Of this, archaeologist G. Ernest Wright says: "It is the one reference we have to this proconsul outside the Bible and it is interesting that Luke gives us correctly his name and title."

Do you keep accurate house-to-house records? If so, you are doing what Luke describes, but that doesn't prove much.

21 When he was in Athens, Paul said he had observed an altar that was dedicated "To an Unknown God." (Acts 17:23) Altars dedicated in Latin to anonymous gods have been discovered in parts of the territory of the Roman Empire. One was found in Pergamum with the inscription written in Greek, as would have been the case in Athens.

22 Later, while in Ephesus, Paul was violently opposed by silversmiths, whose income was derived from making shrines and images of the goddess Artemis. Ephesus was referred to as "the temple keeper of the great Artemis." (Acts 19:35) In harmony with this, a number of terra-cotta and marble figurines of Artemis have been discovered at the site of ancient Ephesus. During the last century, the remains of the huge temple itself were excavated.

This subheading is called "The Archaeological Evidence", but all the evidence the Society provides merely proves that real settings were used in the Christian Greek scriptures, hardly a point of contention today. How does this prove the Bible is God's word, anymore than the fact that the Koran references real places and people proves it is the word of God? For that matter, why not include Shakespeare's Hamlet as a work of truth and reality since it is set in a real place in a real country?

The Ring of Truth

23 Hence, history and archaeology illustrate, and to some extent confirm, the historical elements of the Greek Scriptures. But, again, the strongest proof of the truth of these writings is in the books themselves. When you read them, they do not sound like myths. They have the ring of truth.

This is a judgment call, of course, since much of the Christian Greek scriptures does sound like myths to many people.

24 For one thing, they are very frank. Think of what is recorded about Peter. His embarrassing failure to walk on water is detailed. Then, Jesus says to this highly respected apostle: "Get behind me, Satan!" (Matthew 14:28-31; 16:23) Moreover, after vigorously protesting that even if all the others abandoned Jesus, he would never do so, Peter fell asleep on his night watch and then denied his Lord three times. -- Matthew 26:31-35, 37-45, 73-75.

25 But Peter is not the only one whose weaknesses are exposed. The frank record does not gloss over the apostles' bickering about who was the greatest among them. (Matthew 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24) Nor does it omit telling us that the mother of the apostles James and John asked Jesus to give her sons the most favored positions in his Kingdom. (Matthew 20:20-23) The "sharp burst of anger" between Barnabas and Paul is also faithfully documented. -- Acts 15:36-39.

26 Noteworthy, too, is the fact that the book of Luke tells us that it was "the women, who had come with him out of Galilee," who first learned about Jesus' resurrection. This is a most unusual detail in the male-dominated society of the first century. Indeed, according to the record, what the women were saying "appeared as nonsense" to the apostles. (Luke 23:55-24:11) If the history in the Greek Scriptures is not true, it must have been invented. But why would anyone invent a story portraying such respected figures in such an unflattering light? These details would have been included only if they were true.

There are many details in the Christian Greek scriptures that are, no doubt, absolutely true, or at least come from a true source. People, places, events are described in ways that make it sound as if there really was a Jesus and he had disciples and the disciples worked along with him for some time.

This subheading is focused on the fact that several Bible characters are depicted in a bad light, and thus it has the 'ring of truth' to it. Does that mean Macbeth's wife is a true character, since her flaws are made manifest? Really, this proof is nothing of the sort, since any writer can invent realistic characters, and fiction is full of flawed, realistic people. Since these characters appear throughout fiction, how does a realistic portrayal of early Christians prove that they must be true? By that standard, we might as well say they sound like good fiction.

Jesus -- A Real Person

27 Many have viewed Jesus as he is described in the Bible as an idealized fiction. But historian Michael Grant notes: "If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

Jesus does seem to have been a real person in history.

28 Not only Jesus' existence but also his personality comes through in the Bible with a decided ring of truth. It is not easy to invent an unusual character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout a whole book. It is nearly impossible for four different writers to write about the same character and consistently paint the same picture of him if that character never really existed. The fact that the Jesus described in all four Gospels is obviously the same person is persuasive evidence of the Gospels' truthfulness.

Well, if they were describing the same real person, it should be consistent. Of course, the overall flavor of each of the gospels is quite different from the others, but then if you take all the biographies of, say, Charles Dickens, you get the same overall facts with different styles. What does this prove? Not a thing, other than Dickens, like Jesus, existed.

29 Michael Grant quotes a very appropriate question: "How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?" The only answer is that such a man really existed and acted in the way the Bible says.

The Society is attacking an argument that holds little weight today. Most people will not deny that Jesus existed, so this is an easy argument to win. Perhaps you've noticed by now that many of the arguments the Society fights were put forth before the 20th Century. Note how often they quote some 19th-century critic, and then try to demolish his argument.

Why does the Society avoid modern, up-to-date criticism in this chapter? For example, what about all the discrepancies between the resurrection accounts of the gospels?

Or what about the way Jesus himself is inconsistent in the gospels? For example, at Matthew 5:22 he says "...whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Ge·hen'na." Then at Matt. 23:17 he says to the Pharisees "Fools and blind ones!" Was Jesus exempt from his own rule? He doesn't seem allow for exceptions in Matt. 5.

The Society tries to explain this away in the Insight book under 'Fool' by saying:

"Jesus Christ rightly referred to the scribes and Pharisees as "fools and blind ones," that is, persons lacking wisdom and being morally worthless, for they had distorted the truth by man-made traditions and followed a hypocritical course. Moreover, Jesus backed up the correctness of this designation by illustrating their lack of discernment. (Mt 23:15-22; 15:3) However, the individual wrongly calling a brother a "despicable fool," judging and condemning his brother as being morally worthless, would make himself liable to Gehenna. -- Mt 5:22" (Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1, p. 486)

This adds to the scripture at Matt. 5:22, however, by making an excuse for Jesus' behavior, saying that he rightly called the Pharisees 'fool', but Matt. 5:22 only refers to 'wrongly' calling a brother 'fool'. Note that the same Greek word for 'fool' is used in both cases.

There are many examples where Jesus is presented inconsistently in the gospels. Why doesn't the Society even attempt to discuss these issues, instead relying on attacking 19th-century arguments that hold little weight today?

Why They Do Not Believe

30 Since there is compelling evidence for saying that the Greek Scriptures are true history, why do some say they are not? Why is it that many, while accepting parts of them as genuine, nevertheless refuse to accept everything they contain? It is mainly because the Bible records things that modern intellectuals do not want to believe. It tells, for example, that Jesus both fulfilled and uttered prophecies. It also tells that he performed miracles and that after his death he was resurrected.

31 In this skeptical 20th century, such things are incredible. Regarding miracles, Professor Ezra P. Gould notes: "There is one reservation which some of the critics feel themselves justified in making ... that miracles do not happen." Some accept that Jesus may have effected healings, but only of the psychosomatic, 'mind over matter,' type. As for the other miracles, most explain them away either as inventions or as real events that were distorted in the telling.

Why did Professor Gould think these critics were justified in thinking miracles do not happen? The Society doesn't tell us his side of the story, leaving it up to the average Witness to do the research. Of course, most won't bother. Do you know why he said what he did?

32 As an example of this, consider the occasion when Jesus fed a crowd of more than 5,000 with just a few loaves and two fishes. (Matthew 14:14-22) Nineteenth-century scholar Heinrich Paulus suggested that what really happened was this: Jesus and his apostles found themselves attended by a large multitude that were getting hungry. So he decided to set a good example for the rich among them. He took what little food he and his apostles had and shared it with the multitude. Soon, others who had brought food followed his example and shared theirs. Finally, the whole multitude was fed.

33 If this is what really happened, though, it was a remarkable proof of the power of good example. Why would such an interesting and meaningful story be distorted to make it sound like a supernatural miracle? Indeed, all such efforts to explain away the miracles as other than miraculous pose more problems than they solve. And they are all based on a false premise. They start by assuming that miracles are impossible. But why should that be the case?

And the Society starts by assuming that miracles are possible, and that could be called a false premise.

As far as the question about asking why such an interesting and meaningful story be distorted, the answer is obvious. The early Christians were under attack and needed all the ammunition they could muster. A person who sets a good example for others to follow is nice, but a miracle worker is much better!

34 According to the most reasonable standards, both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures are genuine history, yet they both contain examples of prophecy and miracles. (Compare 2 Kings 4:42-44.) What, then, if the prophecies are genuine? And what if miracles actually did occur? Then God was indeed behind the writing of the Bible, and it really is his word, not man's. In a future chapter, we will discuss the question of prophecy, but first let us consider miracles. Is it reasonable in this 20th century to believe that in earlier centuries miracles did happen?

Next week, we start in on miracles. So far, all this chapter managed to do is demonstrate that Jesus probably existed and that some of the Christian Greek writers knew him personally. Not much else was proved.

Index · Portuguese · Copyright © 1998 Seeker · https://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/word.html