Return to Contents
Barnabas, Gospel of. Muslims often cite the Gospel of Barnabas in defense of Islamic teaching (see Muhammad, Alleged Divine Call of; Qur’an, Alleged Divine Origin of). Typical of Muslim claims is that of Muhammad Ata ur-Rahim: “The Gospel of Barnabas is the only known surviving Gospel written by a disciple of Jesus. . . . [It] was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the churches of Alexandria up until AD 325” (Ata ur-Rahim, 41). Another Muslim author, M. A. Yusseff, argues confidently that “in antiquity and authenticity, no other gospel can come close to The Gospel oj Barnabas” (Yusseff, 5).
It is not surprising that Muslim apologists appeal to the Gospel of Barnabas in that it supports a central Islamic teaching in contrast to the New Testament (see Christ, Death of). It claims that Jesus did not die on the cross (cf. sura 4:157; see Christ’s Death, Substitution Legend). Rather, it argues that Judas Iscariot died in Jesus’s stead (Sect. 217), having been substituted for him at the last minute. This view has been adopted by many Muslims, since the vast majority of them believe that someone else was substituted on the cross for Jesus.
Reputable scholars who have carefully examined it find no real basis for this writing’s authenticity. After reviewing the evidence in a scholarly article in Islamo Christiana, J. Slomp concluded, “In my opinion scholarly research has proved absolutely that this ‘gospel’ is a fake. This opinion is also held by a number of Muslim scholars” (Slomp, 68). In their introduction to the Oxford edition of the Gospel of Barnabas, Longsdale and Ragg conclude that “the true date lies . . . nearer to the sixteenth century than to the first” (Ragg and Ragg, 37). The earliest reference to it comes from a fifth-century work, Decretum Gelasianum (Gelasian Decree, by Pope Gelasius, AD 492-95), and even this reference is indoubt (Slomp, 74). Moreover, there is no original language manuscript evidence for its existence. Slomp says flatly, “There is no text tradition whatsoever of the GBV [Gospel of Barnabas Vienna manuscript]” (ibid.). By contrast, the New Testament books are verified by more than fifty-seven hundred Greek manuscripts that date to the first three centuries (see Bible, Evidence for).
Sources
M. Ata ur-Rahim, Jesus: Prophet of Islam.
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible.
N. L. Geisler and A. Saleeb, Answering Islam.
S. Haneef, What Everyone Should Know about Islam and Muslims.
J. Jomier, Egypt: Reflexions sur la Recontre al-Azhar.
B. L. Jones, Christianity Explained to Muslims.
L. Ragg and L. M. R. Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas.
J. Slomp, 'The Gospel in Dispute.”
D. Sox, The Gospel of Barnabas.
M. A. Yusseff, The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the New Testament.
Barth, Karl Karl Barth (1886-1968) was a German theologian who studied at Berne, Berlin,
Tubingen, and Marburg. He ministered at Geneva from 1901 to 1911. Barth’s most influential works include Commentary on Romans (1919; rev. 1922), The Word of God and Theology (1924; tran. 1928), Theology and the Church (1928), Christian Dogmatics in Outline (1927), Anselm (1931), and Church Dogmatics (1932-68). He also wrote a small but significant work of apologetics, Nein (No).
Influences. Barth drew on the epistemology of Immanuel *Kant by way of Albrecht Ritschl and Wilhelm Herrmann. The existentialism of Soren *Kierkegaard also had significant impact on his thinking, though he disavowed that influence later. Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that portrayed the bankruptcy of human-centered philosophy, helped mold his thinking.
Barth was also influenced by the liberal theological method of Herrmann, the *atheism of Franz Overbeck, and the pietism of Jean Blumhardt, an early nineteenth-century pastor. Barth himself would point to his reading of the Bible, especially Romans, and the Reformers as transforming influences on his life and thought (see Barth’s commentaries on Romans; unless otherwise noted, citations in this article are from Barth’s writings).
Barth was also strongly influenced negatively by the human-centered atheism of Ludwig *Feuerbach. He even wrote a foreword for an edition of Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity. He seemed to affirm that an anthropomorphic religion is the best human beings can do apart from divine revelation.
As a pastor at Safenwil, Barth became disillusioned with liberalism in the face of the practical concerns of Christian preaching. For Barth, truth in religion is based on faith rather than on reason or evidence (Church Dogmatics, 1.2.17). This is *fideism Barth held that transcendental truth cannot be expressed in rational categories. It needs to be made known in the clash of opposites. Theological knowledge is an internal rationality, an inner consistency within the presuppositions of faith. This knowledge is independent of the rules of thought that govern other knowledge.
The apex of Barth’s fideism was reached in his book on Anselm and continued in Church Dogmatics. Only God can make God known. Faith needs no proofs. The Word of God becomes knowable by making itself knowable (Anselm, 282). So strong was this fideism that Barth wrote Nein (No) to respond to another neoorthodox theologian, Emil Brunner. Barth denied that human beings even have an active capacity to receive special revelation from God (see Revelation, Special). Rather, God has to miraculously create the “contact point” within the person before they can communicate (Nein, 29). Of course, he denied the efficacy of general revelation (see Revelation, General) to convey truth of God (ibid., 79-85). Humanity is so totally vitiated by sin that revelation cannot be understood (see Faith and Reason).
*Natural theology, which seeks to establish God’s existence by rational arguments (see God, Evidence for), is simply ruled out (Epistle to the Romans, 2.1.168). Miracles do not confirm revelation to unbelievers. They are meaningful only to those who already believe (ibid., 3.3.2; 714ff; see Miracles, Apologetic Value of). In his Shorter Commentary on Romans (1959), Barth acknowledged that there is a witness of God in nature to which all people have access, but he hastens to add that they have not profited by it (Shorter Commentary, 28).
Evaluation. From the viewpoint of orthodox Christians, Barth is a mixed blessing. Among helpful dimensions of his thought are:
1. his attempt to rej ect modernism and liberalism
2. his identification of the modernist’s effort to put humanity in God’s place
3. his rejection of efforts to make God totally immanent
4. his stress on a bodily resurrection
5. his emphasis on calling the church back to the Bible, with the understanding that faith is not ultimately directed to the book but to God alone
6. his support for central orthodox doctrines
However, in overemphasizing God’s transcendence, Barth effectively made God unknowable. He never overcame the “wholly other” form of his paradox, which will not stand alongside the revealed Son of God of the Christ (Commentary). Barth’s God is the God of Kierkegaard. If language about God is not even analogical, all that is left is *agnosticism about God’s nature.
The central thesis of fideism is self-defeating. The idea that transcendental truth cannot be expressed in rational categories does the very thing it denies—it expresses transcendental truth in rational categories. To propose that “truth is a series of paradoxes” raises the question of whether this statement is true, and, if so, whether it is paradoxical.
Sources
K. Barth, Anselm.
--,Dogmatics in Outline.
--, Church Dogmatics.
--, Epistle to the Romans.
--, Credo.
--,Nein.
--, Shorter Commentary on Romans.
--, Theology and Church.
--, The Word of God and the Word of Man.
G. G. Bolich, Karl Barth and Evangelicalism.
E. Brunner, Revelation and Reason.
S. A. Matczak, Karl Barth on God.
B. Mondin, The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology.
C. Pinnock, "Karl Barth and Christian Apologetics.”
Bayle, Pierre. Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) was born in Carla, France, where his father was a Calvinist clergyman. He attended the Jesuit University of Toulouse in 1669, where he converted to Catholicism. After reconsidering, he returned to Protestantism and became subject to severe penalties under French law. He thus left France for Geneva to finish his studies. He was appointed to the chair of philosophy at Sedan (1675) and later in Rotterdam (1682), where he published his Pensees diverses sur la comete de 1680 {Diverse Thoughts on the Comet of 1680) and his Critique generale de l ’Historie du Calvinisme de M. Maimbourg (A Critique of Maimbourg’s History of Calvinism). Both his father and his brothers died in France as a result of religious persecutions. From 1684 to 1687 he published his famous journal, Nouvelles de la republique des lettres, an attempt to popularize literature. After being deposed from his chair in 1693, he devoted his attention to his famous Dictionaire historique et critique (2 vols., 1697), which was eventually expanded to sixteen volumes by the eleventh edition (1829-24). The English translation was five volumes (1734-38).
After the publication of his Dictionary, Bayle was charged with skepticism, Manichaeism, and disregard for Holy Scripture. Bayle was called before a Presbyterian commission and consented to change some offensive articles, which appeared in revised form in the second edition Nonetheless, it is evident that Bayle was far from being an orthodox Protestant.
Although he was not himself a revolutionary, his writings did pave the way for the French Revolution. Three years before John *Locke (1632-1704) wrote his famous Letters on Toleration, Bayle penned his Commentaire philosphique sur le Compelle Entrare, in which he argued that freedom is a natural right and that even an atheist is not necessarily a bad citizen. Denis Diderot’s skeptic Encyclopedie was based onBayle’s work. Diderot (1713-84) wrote, “Articles dealing with respectable prejudices must expound them differentially; the edifice of clay must be shattered by referring the reader to the other articles in which the opposite truths are established on sound principles” (“Diderot, Denis,” in Encyclopedia Britannica). The influence of Bayle extended to figures such as David *Hume and Edward Gibbon. Thomas *Jefferson recommended the Dictionary as one of the hundred basic books with which to start the Congressional Library. The famous German atheist Ludwig *Feuerbach viewed Bayle as a major figure in modern thought and devoted an entire volume to him (see Feuerbach, Ludwig). The central theses ofBayle’s skepticism are treated elsewhere, particularly in the articles Agnosticism; Apologetics; Bible Criticism; Hume, David; Miracle.
Sources
J. Delvolve, Religion, Critique et Philosophic Positive chez Pierre Bayle.
L. Feuerbach. Pierre Bayle.
R. Popkin, "Bayle, Pierre.”
Η. E. Smith, The Literary Criticism of Pierre Bayle.
Berkeley, George. Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) was born in Kilekenny, Ireland. The primary philosophical writings of Berkeley include A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous (1713), and The Analyst; or, A Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician (1734).
Berkeley is known for two seemingly incongruous positions. He was an epistemological empiricist in the tradition of John *Locke. He was also a metaphysical idealist who denied the existence of matter. Only minds and ideas exist. Esse ispercippi; to be is to be perceived.
Besides being an epistemological empiricist and a metaphysical idealist, Berkeley was a Christian theist (see Theism). He even offered a proof for God’s existence (see God, Evidence for).
1. All ideas are passive objects or perception, (a) Minds perceive, but (b) ideas are only perceived.
2. I am receiving a strong, steady succession of ideas coming from outside me, forced upon me, and over which I have no control. What I call “world” so does everyone else.
3. Therefore, there must be a Mind (God), an active Spirit causing the “world” of ideas I and others receive from outside our minds.
4. We do not directly perceive this Mind but only its effects, the ideas it causes.
The famous response by John Knox: “A Poem on Berkeley” satirizes Berkley’s view”:
There was a young man who said, "God Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that this tree Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad.”
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that is why the tree Will continue to be
Since observed by Yours faithfully, God.
G. Berkeley, The Analyst.
---,A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.
G. Berkeley and C. M. Turbayne, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous.
J. Collins, A History of Modern European Philosophy.
Bible, Alleged Errors in. Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. However, orthodox Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text (“autographs”; see Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1). “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture,” *Augustine wisely noted, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” (Augustine, 11.5). No error that extends to the original text of the Bible has ever been demonstrated.
Some eight hundred alleged errors in the Bible are discussed in Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties without finding a single demonstrated error.
G. L. Archer Jr., Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties.
W. Arndt, Bible Difficulties.
---,Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
Augustine. Reply to Faustus the Manichaean.
B. Ehrman,Misquoting Jesus.
N. L. Geisler, 'The Concept of Truth in the Inerrancy Debate.”
---, Systematic Theology, vol. 1.
---, When Critics Ask.
N. L. Geisler and T. Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficidties.
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible.
J. W. Haley. An Examination of Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.
H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible.
J. Orr, The Problems of the Old Testament.
J. R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible.
E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings.
R. Tuck, A Handbook of Biblical Difficidties.
R. D. Wilson. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament.
Bible, Evidence for. The Bible claims to be and proves to be the Word of God. It was written by prophets of God, under the inspiration of God. And it was confirmed by acts of God (see Miracle). Written by Prophets of God. The biblical authors were prophets and apostles of God (see
Miracles, Apologetic Value of; Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible). There are many designations for prophet, and these are informative about their role in producing Scripture. They are called:
1. a man of God (1 Kings 12:22), meaning chosenness.
2. a servant of the Lord (1 Kings 14:18), indicating faithfulness.
3. a messenger of the Lord (Isa. 42:19), showing mission.
4. a seer (ro ’eh), or beholder (hozeh) (Isa. 30:9-10), revealing insight from God.
5. a man of the Spirit (Hosea 9:7 KJV; cf. Micah 3:8), noting spiritual indwelling.
6. a watchman (Ezek. 3:17), relating alertness for God.
7. a prophet (most frequently), marking a spokesman for God.
The work of a biblical prophet is described in vivid terms: “The Lord has spoken; who can but prophesy” (Amos 3:8). He is one who speaks “all the words which the Lord has spoken”
(Exod. 4:30). God said to Moses of a prophet, “I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut. 18:18). He added, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2). Jeremiah was commanded: “This is what the Lord says: Stand in the courtyard of the Lord’s house and speak to all the people. . . . Tell them everything I command you; do not omit a word” (Jer. 26:2).
A prophet was someone who said what God told him to say, no more and no less.
Moved by the Spirit of God. Throughout Scripture, the authors claimed to be under the direction of the Holy Spirit. David said, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me; his word was on my tongue”
(2 Sam. 23:2). Peter, speaking of the whole Old Testament, added, “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”
(2 Peter 1:21).
Not all prophets were known by that term. David and Solomon were kings. But they were mouthpieces of God, and David is called a “prophet” in Acts 2:29-39. Moses was a lawgiver. He too was a prophet or spokesman for God (Deut. 18:18). Amos disclaimed the term prophet, in that he was not a professional prophet, like Samuel and his “school of the prophets” (1 Sam. 19:20). Even if Amos was not a prophet by office, he was one by gift (cf. Amos 7:14). God used him to speak. Nor did all prophets speak in an explicit “Thus says the Lord” first-person style. Those who wrote historical narrative spoke in an implied “Thus did the Lord” approach. Their message was about the acts of God in relation to the people and their sins. In each case, God made the prophet a channel through which to convey his message to us.
Breathed Out by God. The writings of prophets were breathed out by God. Of the entire Old Testament canon, the apostle Paul declared, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Jesus described the Scriptures as the very “word that comes out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). They were written by men who spoke from God. Paul said his writings were “words . . . which the Holy Spirit teaches” (1 Cor. 2:13). As Jesus said to the Pharisees, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?” (Matt. 22:43, emphasis added).
What the Bible Says. The basic logic of the inerrancy of Scripture is offered in the article Bible, Alleged errors in. That the Bible is God’s inerrant Word is expressed in several ways in Scripture. One is the formula “What the Bible says, God says.” An Old Testament passage claims God said something, yet when this text is cited in the New Testament, the text tells us that the Scriptures said it. Sometimes the reverse is true. In the Old Testament, it is said that the Bible records something. The New Testament declares that God said it. Consider this comparison:
|
What God Says ... |
The Bible Says |
|
Genesis 12:3 |
Galatians 3:8 |
|
Exodus 9:16 |
Romans 9:17 |
|
What the Bible Says ... |
God Says |
|
Genesis 2:24 |
Matthew 19:4-5 |
|
Psalm 2:1 |
Acts 4:24-25 |
|
Psalm 2:7 |
Hebrews 3:7 |
|
Psalm 16:10 |
Acts 13:35 |
|
Psalm 95:7 |
Hebrews 3:7 |
|
Psalm 97:7 |
Hebrews 3:7 |
|
Psalm 104:4 |
Hebrews 3:7 |
|
Isaiah 55:3 |
Acts 13:34 |
Scripture’s Claims. “Thus Says the Lord. ” Phrases such as “thus says the Lord” (e.g., Isa.
1:11, 18; Jer. 2:3, 5), “God said” (Gen. 1:3), and “the Word of the Lord came” (Jer. 34:1; Ezek.
30:1) are used hundreds of times in Scripture to stress God’s direct, verbal inspiration of what was written.
“The Word of God. ” At some points the Bible claims, forthrightly and unequivocally, to be “the Word of God.” Referring to Old Testament commands, Jesus told the Jews of his day, “Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:6). Paul speaks of the Scriptures as “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). Peter declares, “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). The writer of Hebrews affirms, “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).
The Claim of Divine Authority. Other words or phrases used in Scripture entail the claim of God’s authority. Jesus said the Bible will never pass away and is sufficient for faith and life (Fuke 16:31; cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17). He proclaimed that the Bible possesses divine inspiration (Matt. 22:43) and authority (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). It has unity (Fuke 24:27; John 5:39) and spiritual clarity (Fuke 24:25).
The Extent of Its Divine Authority. The extent of divine authority in Scripture includes:
1. all that is written—2 Timothy 3:16
2. even the very words—Matthew 22:43; 1 Corinthians 2:13
3. and tenses of verbs—Matthew 22:32; Galatians 3:16
4. including even the smallest parts of words—Matthew 5:17-18
Even though the Bible was not verbally dictated by God, the result is as perfectly God’s thoughts as if it had been. The Bible’s authors claimed that God was the source of the very words, since he supernaturally superintended the process by which each human wrote, using their vocabulary and style to record his message (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Presented in Human Terms. Although the Bible claims to be the Word of God, it is also the words of human beings. It claims to be God’s communication to people, in their own language and expressions.
First, every book in the Bible was the composition of human writers.
Second, the Bible manifests different human literary styles, from the mournful meter of Lamentations to the exalted poetry of Isaiah, from the simple grammar of John to the complex Greek of Hebrews. Their choices of metaphors show that writers used their own backgrounds and interests. James is interested in nature. Jesus uses urban metaphors, and Hosea uses those of rural life.
Third, the Bible manifests human perspectives and emotions; David spoke in Psalm 23 from a shepherd’s perspective. Kings is written from a prophetic vantage point and Chronicles from a priestly point of view. Acts manifests a historical interest and 2 Timothy a pastor’s heart. Paul expressed grief over the Israelites who had rejected God (Rom 9:2).
Fourth, the Bible reveals human thought patterns and processes, including reasoning (Romans) and memory (1 Cor. 1:14-16).
Fifth, writers of the Bible used human sources for information, including historical research (Luke 1:1-4) and noncanonical writings (Josh. 10:13; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12;
Jude 9, 14).
Original Text Is without Errors, Not the Copies. As noted in the article Bible, Alleged Errors in, not every copy and translation of the Bible is perfect. God breathed out the originals, not the copies, so inerrancy applies to the original text, not to every copy. God in his providence preserved the copies from substantial error. In fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent (see New Testament Manuscripts).
The Overall Evidence. Considered as a totality, evidence for the Bible’s claim to be the Word of God is very strong.
The Testimony of Christ. Perhaps the strongest argument that the Bible is the Word of God is the testimony of Jesus (see Bible, Jesus’s View of). Even non-Christians believe he was a good teacher. Muslims believe him to be a true prophet of God (see Muhammad, Alleged Divine Call of). Christians, of course, insist that he is the Son of God as he claimed to be (Matt. 16:16-18; Mark 2:5-11; John 5:22-30; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28-29) and proved to be by numerous miracles (John3:2; Acts 2:22; see Miracles in the Bible). Even the Qur’an admits that Jesus did miracles (see Muhammad, Alleged Miracles of) and that the Bible Christians used in Muhammad’s day (AD seventh century) was accurate, since they were challenged to consult it to verify Muhammad’s claims.
Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to be the Word of God and promised to guide his disciples to know all truth. Jesus claimed for the Bible (see Bible, Jesus’s View of):
1. divine authority—Matthew 4:4, 7, 10
2. indestructibility—Matthew 5:17-18
3. infallibility or unbreakability—John 10:35
4. ultimate supremacy—Matthew 15:3, 6
5. factual inerrancy—Matthew 22:29; John 17:17
6. historical reliability—Matthew 12:40; 24:37-38
7. scientific accuracy—Matthew 19:4-5; John 3:12
The authority of Jesus confirms the authority of the Bible. If he is the Son of God (see Christ, Deity of), then the Bible is the Word of God. Indeed, if Jesus were merely a prophet, then the Bible still is confirmed to be the Word of God through his prophetic office. Only if one rejects the divine authority of Christ can one consistently reject the divine authority of the Scriptures. If Jesus is telling the truth, then it is true that the Bible is God’s Word.
Manuscript Evidence. New Testament manuscripts are now available from the third and fourth centuries and fragments that may date back as far as the late first century. From these through the medieval centuries, the text remained substantially the same. There are earlier and more manuscripts for the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world. While most books exist in ten or twenty manuscripts dating from a thousand years or more after they were composed, one nearly entire manuscript, the Chester Beatty Papyri, was copied in about 250. Another manuscript with the majority of the New Testament, called Vaticanus, is dated to about 325.
The Biblical Authors. Whatever weaknesses they may have had, the biblical authors are universally presented in Scripture as scrupulously honest, and this lends credibility to their claims, for the Bible is not shy to admit the failures of God’s people.
They taught the highest standard of ethics, including the obligation to always tell the truth. Moses’s law commanded: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exod. 20:16). Indeed, only one “whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart” (Ps. 15:2), who “has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellow-man, [and] who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the Lord, who keeps his oath even when it hurts” was considered righteous.
The New Testament also exalts integrity, commanding: “Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25). The person who “loves and practices falsehood” will be excluded from heaven, according to Revelation 22:15. Absolute truthfulness was extolled as a cardinal Christian virtue.
The biblical writers not only taught the highest moral standards, including truthfulness, but also exemplified them in their lives. A true prophet could not be bought off. As one prophet who was tempted confessed, “I could not go beyond the command of the Lord” (Num 22:18). What God spoke, the prophet had to declare, regardless of the consequences. Many prophets were threatened and even martyred but never recanted the truth. Jeremiah was put into prison for his unwelcome prophecies (Jer. 32:2; 37:15) and even threatened with death (Jer. 26:8, 24). Others were killed (Matt. 23:34-36; Heb. 11:32-38). Peter and the eleven apostles (Acts 5), as well as Paul (Acts 28), were all imprisoned, and most were eventually martyred for their testimony (2 Tim 4:6-8; 2 Peter 1:14). Indeed, being “faithful unto death” was an earmark of early Christian conviction (Rev. 2:10).
People sometimes die for false causes they believe to be true, but few die for what they know to be false. Yet the biblical witnesses, who were in a positionto know what was true, died for proclaiming that their message came from God. This is at least prima facie evidence that the Bible is what they claimed it to be—the Word of God.
The Miraculous Confirmation. It is always possible that someone believes he or she speaks for God and does not. There are false prophets (Matt. 7:15). This is why the Bible exhorts: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). One sure way a true prophet can be distinguished from a false one is through miracles (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4). A miracle is an act of God, and God would not supernaturally confirm a false prophet to be a true one (see Miracles in the Bible; Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible).
When Moses was called of God, he was given miracles to prove he spoke for God (Exod. 4).
Elijah on Mount Carmel was confirmed by fire from heaven to be a true prophet of the true God (1 Kings 18). Even Nicodemus acknowledged to Jesus, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2).
Even the Qur’an recognizes that God confirmed his prophets (sura 7:106-8, 116-19), including Jesus, by miracles. God is said to have told Muhammad, “If they reject thee, so were rejected apostles before thee, who came with clear signs” (sura 17:103). Allah says, “Then We sent Moses and his brother Aaron, with Our signs and authority manifest” (sura 23:45). Interestingly, when Muhammad was challenged by unbelievers to perform like miracles, he refused (see sura 2:118; 3:183; 4:153; 6:8, 9, 37). In Muhammad’s own words (fromthe Qur’an), “They [will] say: ‘Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?”’ since even Muhammad admitted that “God hath certainly power to send down a sign” (sura 6:37; see Muhammad, Alleged Miracles of; Qur’an, Alleged Divine Origin of). But miracles were a mark of Jesus’s ministry and that of other prophets and apostles (Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 12:12; see Miracles, Apologetic Value of). When asked by John the Baptist if he was the Messiah, Jesus responded, “Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached” (Luke 7:20-22).
Miracles, then, are a divine confirmation of a prophet’s claim to be speaking for God (see Miracle). But of all the world’s religious leaders, only the Judeo-Christian prophets and apostles were supernaturally confirmed by genuine miracles of nature that could not possibly have been self-delusion or trickery. Confirming miracles included the turning of water into wine (John 2), healing of those with organic sicknesses (John 5), multiplying food (John 6), walking on water (John 6), and raising the dead (John 11).
Muslims allege that Muhammad did miracles, but there is no support for this claim, even in the Qur’an (for his refusal to do miracles, see sura 3:181-84; see Muhammad, Character of). Only the Bible is supernaturally confirmed.
Predictions by Biblical Prophets. Unlike any other book, the Bible offers specific predictions that were written hundreds of years in advance of their literal fulfillment. Many of these center around the coming of Christ and others around world events. For a discussion of a number of these, see Prophecy, as Proof of the Bible. While Bible critics play with the dating of Old Testament books to claim that predictions were written after their fulfillment, these claims abuse credibility. In some cases of more recent fulfillment, no such claims are even possible. These fulfillments stand as a mark of the Bible’s unique, supernatural origin.
The Unity of the Bible. One supporting line of evidence for the Bible’s divine origin is its unity in great diversity. Even though composed by many people of diverse backgrounds over many years, Scripture speaks from one mind.
Not taking into account unknowns in the dating for Job and sources Moses could have used, the first book was written no later than 1400 BC and the last shortly before AD 100. In all there are sixty-six different books, written by perhaps forty authors of different backgrounds, educational levels, and occupations. Most was written originally in Hebrew or Greek, with some small portion in Aramaic.
The Bible covers hundreds of topics in literature of widely varying styles. These include history, poetry, didactic literature, parable, allegory, apocalyptic, and epic.
Yet note the amazing unity. These sixty-six books unfold one continuous drama of redemption, paradise lost to paradise regained, creation to the consummation of all things (see Sauer, Dawn of World Redemption and Triumph of the Crucified). There is one central theme, the person of Jesus Christ, even by implication in the Old Testament (Luke 24:27). In the Old Testament, Christ is anticipated; in the New Testament, he is realized (Matt. 5:17-18). There is one message:
Humankind’s problem is sin, and the solutionis salvation through Christ (Mark 10:45; Luke 19:10).
Such incredible unity is best accounted for by the existence of a divine Mind, which the writers of Scripture claimed inspired them This Mind wove each of their pieces into one mosaic of truth
Critics claim this is not so amazing, considering that succeeding authors were aware of preceding ones. Hence, they could build upon these texts without contradicting them Or, later generations accepted a book into the growing canon only because it seemed to fit.
But not all writers were aware that their book would come to be in the canon (e.g., Song of Solomon and the multiauthor of Proverbs). They could not have slanted their writing to the way that would best fit. There was no one point when books were accepted into the canon. Even though some later generations raised questions as to how a book came to be in the canon, there is evidence that books were accepted immediately by the contemporaries of the writers. When Moses wrote, his books were placed by the ark (Deut. 31:22-26). Later, Joshua was added, and Daniel had copies of these works, plus even the scroll of his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). In the New Testament,
Paul cites Luke (1 Tim 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), and Peter possessed at least some of Paul’s Epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). While not every Christian everywhere possessed every book immediately, it does seem that some writings were accepted and distributed immediately. Perhaps others were disseminated more slowly, after they were determined to be authentic.
Even if every author possessed every earlier book, there is still a unity that transcends human ability. The reader might assume that each author was an incredible literary genius who saw both the broader unity and “plan” of Scripture and just how his piece would fit in it. Could even such geniuses write so that the unforeseen end would come out, even though they could not know precisely what that end would be? It is easier to posit a superintending Mind behind the whole who devised the plot and from the beginning planned how it would unfold.
Suppose a book of family medical advice was composed by forty doctors over fifteen hundred years in different languages on hundreds of medical topics. What kind of unity would it have, even assuming that authors knew what preceding ones had written? Due to superstitious medical practice in the past, one chapter would say that disease is caused by demons who must be exorcised. Another would claim that disease is in the blood and must be drained by blood-letting. Another would claim disease to be a function of mind over matter. At best, such a book would lack unity, continuity, and usefulness. It would hardly be a definitive source covering the causes and cures of disease. Yet the Bible, with greater diversity, is still sought by millions for its solutions to spiritual maladies. It alone, of all books known to humankind, needs a God to account for its unity in diversity.
Archaeological Confirmation. Archaeology cannot directly prove the Bible’s inspiration, but it can confirm its reliability as a historical document. This is an indirect confirmation of inspiration.
(See Archaeology, New Testament, and Archaeology, Old Testament, for some of this evidence.) The conclusion of that evidence was summed up by Nelson Glueck: “No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Glueck, 31). Millar Burrows notes that “more than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine” (Burrows, 1).
Testimonies of Transforming Power. The writer of Hebrews declares that “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword” (4:12). The apostle Peter added, “Lor you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). While not in the area of primary evidence, a subjective, supporting line of evidence is the change in life that God’s Word brings. While early Islam spread by the power of
the sword, early Christianity spread by the sword of the Spirit, even as Christians were being killed by the power of the Roman sword.
The great Christian apologist William *Paley vividly summarized the differences between the growth of Christianity and that of Islam:
For what are we comparing? A Galilean peasant accompanied by a few fishermen with a conqueror at the head of his army. We compare Jesus, without force, without power, without support, without one external circumstance of attraction or influence, prevailing against the prejudices, the learning, the hierarchy, of his country, against the ancient religious opinions, the pompous religious rites, the philosophy, the wisdom, the authority of the Roman empire, in the most polished and enlightened period of its existence,—with Mahomet making his way amongst Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests and triumphs, in the darkest ages and countries of the world, and when success in arms not only operated by that command of men’s wills and persons which attend prosperous undertakings, but was considered as a sure testimony of Divine approbation. That multitudes, persuaded by this argument, should join the train of a victorious chief; that still greater multitudes should, without any argument, bow down before irresistible power—is a conduct in which we cannot see much to surprise us; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes by which the establishment of Christianity was effected. (Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 257)
Despite the later misuse of military power in the Crusades and at isolated times earlier, the fact is that early Christianity grew by its spiritual power, not by political force. From the very beginning, as it is today around the world, it was the preaching of the Word of God, which transformed lives, that gave Christianity its vitality (Acts 2:41). For “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17).
Conclusion. The Bible is the only book that both claims and proves to be the Word of God. It claims to be written by prophets of God who recorded in their own style and language exactly the message God wanted them to give to humankind. The writings of the prophets and apostles claim to be the unbreakable, imperishable, and inerrant words of God. The evidence that these writings are what they claimed to be is found not only in the authors’ own moral character but also in the supernatural confirmation of their message, its prophetic accuracy, its amazing unity, its transforming power, and the testimony of Jesus, who was confirmed to be the Son of God.