Authenticity of the Bible

[CatholicIllini]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

 

[TimothyH]

Two of the authors were eyewitnesses and part of Jesus’ inner circle of twelve apostles.

What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we looked upon
and touched with our hands
concerns the Word of life -
for the life was made visible;
we have seen it and testify to it
and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us
(1 John 1:1-2)

Two of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

-Tim-

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

Greetings CatholicIllini,

I would recommend your friend reading Dei Verbum - Dogmatic Constituion on Divine Revelation from the Second Vatican Council. I quote the pertinent parts as to relating to your question.

From Dei Verbum paragraph 19

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

I also quote paragraphs 11-12

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)
   Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
   To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
   But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Spencerian]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

Hi, and welcome to the Forums.

As Catholics, we do not believe in the Bible on faith. We believe in God. The Bible is inerrant writing of His teachings to us, so we do take the Scripture to its word, so to speak. But interpretation is a different matter when it comes to those who pick up the Bible to casually read.

You might start by asking your friend if he/she knows how the Bible was formed in the first place. Catholics don’t believe it just fell from the sky. In fact, we know not only how it was formed, but know the specific sources (or their agents) for the stories that become codified into a series of books that collectively became the Bible.

This popular work, “Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church,” was written by a Protestant. This link points to an online version that’s free to read.

You may also say to your friend, “Yes, Scripture can seem contradictory–if those who are not trained in reading Scripture attempt to read it.” You may suggest to your friend that the Bible was not designed as a book where anyone who picked it up could discern everything about it. Nor was the Bible designed as a complete self-help guide to all things about God and Christianity.

There is one body that has the most experience on the nature of Scripture and how to interpret what is there. They were also the ones that codified it and, unlike many Protestants and non-denominationals, don’t have massive disagreements about what is there. The Catholic Church has a very good bead on answering any issues about apparent contradictions. Suggest to your friend to call the Catholic Answers Live show with Scriptural verses that they question. It is rare that the apologists cannot explain the matter because they are often trained in the stories of the entire Bible and don’t wallow about on its highlights.

You may also point your friend to this Catholic Answers tract on proving the inspiration to compile the stories of Christ from oral tradition into written form (Scripture) is historically founded only in the Catholic Church.

 

[tugbaby]

Your agnostic friend is falling into a common misconception of placing modern sensibility on ancient people. The statement that “Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus" assumes that the written word was more reliable than oral tradition. At the time of Christ writing technology was extremely expensive and only done by a few literate people. Oral tradition was the main and most reliable form of keeping history. Teachers were trained to repeat entire books verbatim before they were allowed to teach. There are still fragments of oral history in our modern world but it is a very different thing than existed two centuries ago.

 

[OchsFam]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

You may want to mention that the Bible is BY FAR the most meticulously cared for and documented text of all time. When you consider the age of many copies we have around today that were found throughout the world (including the OT) with little to no change in meaning, it speaks volumes to its authenticity. There are multiple, ancient copies of the text of the Bible and many documents discussing its history that date it back even further than the copies we have. All that said, people are willing to accept a single copy of Aristotle’s work as authentic but have problems with the authenticity of the Bible which has more copies that are found in various cultures and date further back than Aristotle’s document? Why?

Historically speaking, there can be no doubt as to the fact that the books were written shortly after Christ and tradition points (also documented) to the Apostles or their disciples as the original authors. It isn’t just faith, the books were chosen based in part on their historical relevance.

This article may also prove helpful.

God Bless.

 

[Jesus_123]

+Your agnostic friend has fallen into the dark error of unbelief wherein they are totally disregarding and ignoring the existence and actions of our . . . Wonderful Living God . . . altogether . . . the **Divine Inspiration **of Sacred Scripture is foundational to understanding the essence and profound reality of God’s Holy Word . . . and the truths therein . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

**In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven
comes lovingly to meet his children,
and talks with them. **

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b​

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8​

:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11​

:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35​

:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1​

"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14
:bible1:

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . our
"Father Who Art in Heaven"
we love Thee+
. . . thank You Dear Father+​

 

[patg]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

This isn’t an attack. its pretty much the truth. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

None of the bibles we use are from a single or original source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

There are no independent attestations of any of the gospel stories - all the gospels are closely related (not independent) and all were written by “insiders” - those who already believed.

Belief in the “truth” of the gospels must be totally based on faith. Note that the church requires literal belief in only a small handful of the stories and that even that belief is based on faith - there is no way to “prove” the historicity. The only way to accept the authenticity of the bible is to accept the authoritative statements of the church which are again, based on faith.

You might want to look at:

Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know by Ronald D.Witherup S.S. This small book explores the subject from a Catholic perspective and also has an *imprimatur *and *nihil obstat (*in case you are concerned about getting your “facts” from a bunch of random strangers, as you should be).

The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the pontifical biblical commission and Pope Paul VI (available online).

 

[abe3]

There is more historical evidence for the biblical Jesus Christ than there is historical evidence of George Washington. People go out of their way to disbelieve.

 

[Irishgal49]

I personally do not believe the Bible is any more inspired than Guideposts or any other devotional literature. I like reading the Gospels because I’m sure there is historical information on Jesus although I’m not believing that people remembered every word Jesus said 30 and 40 years later. All those translations, all those who had AGENDAS and ideas of what they WANTED it to say. After learning Hebrew I found that one word can be translated into 3 or 4 words with very drastically different meanings.

I read the Bible because it teaches lessons on morality, gives us some teachings and life story of Jesus but after seeing how it “came together” I no longer believe it to be infallible. I think most of us could see that…I was even shown by a scholar where there was a copying error in the Old Testament. So it’s obviously not perfect. And that bull about "you have to be a scholar to understand the contradictions “aren’t really contradictions” is hogwash. They are there for a reason. We are to worship God not the book.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I personally do not believe the Bible is any more inspired than Guideposts or any other devotional literature.

Greetings Irishgal49,

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 105-107, emphasis is mine. [Most of this can be found in Dei Verbum too.]

#105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

#106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

#107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The Church clearly teaches that Scripture is inspired. Just because you do not believe that the Bible is not inspired does not change the ontological reality that it is indeed inspired. I shall pray that you come to believe that the Bible is inspired.

I agree we are to worship God and not the book. But the book is inspired. To believe otherwise is not to believe as the Church teaches and believes.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Irishgal49]

I would never believe that a book that can be easily traced to political agendas is EVER the inspired word of God. If you just look at the history of the Bible you will realize it’s totally ****. I believe it can be inspirational but no more than any other magazine or book that talks about God. If I don’t have concrete evidence or proof then I will believe in faith but when there are hard and obvious facts I cannot “erase my brain” and believe in propaganda no matter whose peddling it. Sorry I do this weird thing, it’s called THINKING.

 

[CatholicIllini]

Hey IrishGal49,

If you really do believe in God and have read the Bible so meticulously as you have said, why do you resort to petty, offensive accusations of people with beliefs that differ from yours? No one on this thread has been rude or angry to you. Isn’t the Second Greatest Commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Aka The Golden Rule: “Treat others as you would like to be treated”? Maybe you should dust off that Bible of yours and peruse it again.

 

[Contarini]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

Is your friend suggesting that texts cannot be accurate when speaking of events that occurred a few decades earlier?

Certainly the Gospels are not transcripts of what Jesus said. They are based on the memory of eyewitnesses, either directly recounted to the author or passed on through a very brief period of oral tradition.

Of course we can’t prove that the Gospels are 100% accurate. For criteria of historicity, the best place to start is with the Catholic scholar John Meier. Another excellent “historical Jesus” scholar whose work is respected by folks across the ideological spectrum is E. P. Sanders.

I am not suggesting that as Christians we can only accept as historical the things these scholars believe they can prove. Rather, I’m saying that in conversations with unbelievers these are good starting points.

Edwin

 

[Irishgal49]

Hey IrishGal49,

If you really do believe in God and have read the Bible so meticulously as you have said, why do you resort to petty, offensive accusations of people with beliefs that differ from yours? No one on this thread has been rude or angry to you. Isn’t the Second Greatest Commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself”? Aka The Golden Rule: “Treat others as you would like to be treated”? Maybe you should dust off that Bible of yours and peruse it again.

Where am I being accusatory, I’m expressing my view. But I keep forgetting if you say something that doesn’t “go along” with what others like you are being rude. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want about the Bible, and who knows what those commandments originally said. Most of that stuff was made up. If you believe it that’s fine. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t make them “rude”.

 

[anrmenchaca47]

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want about the Bible, and who knows what those commandments originally said. Most of that stuff was made up.

Irishgal

First of all welcome back to the Catholic faith!!! I have had my share of comings and goings.
I have been reading your posts and do agree with you…I don’t see any intent of accusations towards anyone.

However, I need to point out what was said up on top:

Private interpretation was what caused Luther to veer off and begin the Reformation(along with his 95 theses). It’s not about “believing whatever” we want about the Bible. Granted, this is the reason why the early Church forbade reading scripture because of misinterpretation. The Church and her magesterium, along with going to Mass, helps us discern the meaning behind the Gospels with the help of the priests. The structure of teaching is very important. Can you imagine going to a class room and letting kids do their own interpretation of homework or class objectives? It would be complete chaos. The teacher directs them in the objectives and shows them what needs to be learned.

Also, if I am not mistaken, we have had VERY good interpreters in the Church to help decipher hebrew, to greek, to latin and to english. There is no doubt about it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the word of God. These were very talented to people, a talent that God specfically gave to them, to translate (i.e; interpretation of tongues) It is not made up. There is no way I would DARE make up something that was already written. Luther did that already and guess what happened? God bless you Irishgal and all I can say is this…Do research, lots and lots of research along with prayer. God knows it has helped me become a stronger Catholic!!!

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yesterday, an agnostic asked me how Catholics can accept the authenticity of the Bible. He said that the Gospels were all written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, and that there were many more Gospels that the Church does not recognize because they are conflicting/heretical. How does a Catholic respond to such an attack without just saying, “We believe it based on faith”? Does the Church have any Biblical scholars of their own who can logically defend the authenticity of the Bible?

Look for a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

The agnostic is making a really poor argument because writing the gospels 20 years after Jesus’ life is the best history we have. If you compare the dates between when an event occurred and when it was written about and the dates and number of manuscripts we have today for an historical event. The Resurrection and Life of Jesus is the Best documented among all historical events and documents. There are literally hundreds of years between an event and when it was written about. Also, when Paul wrote his letters, there were more than 500 people still alive who witnessed the Resurrection.

I cor 15

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I would never believe that a book that can be easily traced to political agendas is EVER the inspired word of God. If you just look at the history of the Bible you will realize it’s totally ****. I believe it can be inspirational but no more than any other magazine or book that talks about God. If I don’t have concrete evidence or proof then I will believe in faith but when there are hard and obvious facts I cannot “erase my brain” and believe in propaganda no matter whose peddling it. Sorry I do this weird thing, it’s called THINKING.

Greetings Irishgal49,

So you think the Church is peddling propaganda, because the Church teaches and believes that the Bible is inspired.

If you do not believe that the Bible is inspired as the Church teaches again I say you are outside of the what the Church believes and teaches in.

The comment of you doing the weird thing called THINKING, so those who believe in the Bible as being the inspired Word of God can’t think?

I think your post is a bit uncharitable and confrontational.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[bz5]

My son’s religion class just touched on this topic, and here are some of the reasons they gave for believing in the gospels: they were written fairly close to the time the events occurred - closer than many of the events we read of in ancient history texts yet still accept; they include eyewitness testimony; people alluded to them would have still been alive, and there is no record anyone came forward to contradict them; other, non-Christian sources, like Tacitus and Josephus, allude to them; all the apostles but John died horrible deaths in scattered places rather than testify to something different. If the gospel accounts were lies, why bother? Surely at least some of them would have changed their testimony.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My father passed away about 20 years ago, If I were to write a text today about his life and actions, and what he told me, why do you think it would be inaccurate? Especially, as it may have been based on notes and letters I wrote at the time and kept?

If the original text was carefully copied and recopied, and there were thousands of copies to compare against each other, and they were all accurate except for an occasional “a” instead of “an” or a name spelled “Johnn” by mistake instead of “John” (which accounts for the vast majority of all textual errors in all the early copies of the Bible), wouldn’t you think the original text was authentic?

If my original text was wildly popular, so that imitators wrote books about my dad that included a few of the original facts I described (his nickname was “Dutch”; he smoked Camel cigarettes) but added some wildly divergent details that didn’t match my original book (He could grow over thirty feet tall by winking; he said that a secret all-pork diet was the way to spiritual perfection, which he taught only to a select cadre of his fellow members of the Elks), would that in any way invalidate the authenticity of my original text?