Part VI
AUTHENTICITY

Is the authorship of the Bible well-enough established so that it can be quoted with credibility?

One difficulty with the Bible’s claim to God’s authority is that it is written. Unfortunately, written language is a notoriously unreliable source of testimony. The credibility of the Bible is highly dependent on the literacy of the witness-author, the faithful reproduction of the author’s original words, and the literacy of the audience. It is vulnerable to forgery, editing, copy errors, translation errors, loss, and neglect; and it is vulnerable to the art of those who twist words to their own ends. It is inconceivable that God would employ any mechanism for recording and dispensing his word to mankind (matters of life, death, and eternal punishment) which is so vulnerable to error, misunderstanding, or mis-use.
When we are to asked believe that the Bible was the word of God, it is reasonable that we should know who said so, so we can determine how much credibility to give his report. Paul said that all scripture was inspired by God.

- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2Tim 3:16

Paul also said that the Bible was not 100% inspired by God.

- "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord…" 1Cor 7:12
- "That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting." 2Cor 11:17
- "And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)" 2Cor 12:3

In order to grant authority to any testimony, we must have confidence in the source of that testimony, both their identity and the veracity. In court, would we credit any testimony from a witness who wasn’t who the prosecutor claimed? Would we credit an anonymous witness? Beyond knowing the identity and dependability of the one making the claim, we also need to independently verify the witness’ story.
Some people claim that credibility is not an issue, since the Bible’s message was the word of God based on revelation, not history. Revelation is something communicated to a person which they did not know before; but if we have done something or seen something, there is no need for revelation to tell us we have done it or seen it, nor to help us write it or tell it. Revelation doesn’t apply to anything someone saw or did; because if they did it or saw it, there would have been a witness. Since the Bible was primarily history and anecdote, not revelation, the majority of it was not the word of God but the words of men; and the words of men should always be suspect. For example:

"When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza…(and whether he did or not is nothing to us) or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did any thing else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them himself…and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them…we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God." (Paine, Age, 676)

There is no justification for believing a story to be a miracle just because the Bible told it that way. We don’t look at other ancient writings in this manner. We give credence to Herodotus and Tacitus (histories) only to the extent that they tell us about things that are credible or probable or, like Euclid (geometry), to the extent that they are self-evident. Otherwise, we would have to believe Tacitus’ account of Vespasian curing a lame man and a blind man (as Jesus supposedly did). Perhaps we should also believe Josephus who said that the sea of Pamphilia opened up to let Alexander and his army pass (as the Red Sea / Sea of Reeds supposedly did for Moses).
Our need for evidence is far greater for apparent miracles than it is for natural and probable things, whether ancient or not. Even the Catholic Church’s miracle clearing house agrees. Indeed, the more ancient and incredible an uncorroborated tale is, the more likely it is to be a fable rather than a history.

CHAPTER 28: Sources of The Bible

If we are asked to believe the divine inspiration and literal truth of the Bible, we must know who wrote it and why it looks like it does.

Manuscripts

Five-thousand or so manuscripts exist, and they contain some 200,000 variants. No original manuscript exists for any Bible, Testament, or book.

Canon

Of all the ancient and contemporary writings available to the Holy Fathers, the books to be included in the Bible were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE by a vote of 568 to 563. That is, the contents of the Bible were approved by a margin of only 5 of the 1131 votes cast, 1/5 of 1%. Lots of compromises, deals, and arm-twisting must have been necessary to get this narrow majority, but that’s really beside the point. The main question is: If the Bible was divinely inspired, why wasn’t this vote unanimous? Not only was the canon determined by vote, but we don’t even know who these voters were. This provides scant support for any claim to inerrant, divine authority.

Apocrypha

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563 CE), the Roman Catholic Church even revised the contents of that Bible by including eleven of the fourteen books of the Apocrypha (books of doubtful authority), works specifically rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE as uninspired. Christians can’t agree whether these books should have been included or not. They are not considered essential parts of the Bible by either Protestants or Jews. One may find these books included in Protestant, Anglican, and U.S. Episcopal Bibles; and passages from them are commonly used in lessons and sermons.
These books were not included because they contain historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms; there was no claim within the text that they were inspired by God; they contained demonstrable errors; and they contained wildly extravagant stories. Biblical politics also played a part in their omission. If Protestants can omit the Apocrypha for doubtful authenticity, then we should legitimately be able to omit books we consider of doubtful authenticity also.

Missing Books

There are five books which were mentioned in the Bible which were not included in the Bible. Why not? What would they have had to say to us about God and his message to mankind?

Wars of the Lord.

"…it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord…" Num 21:14

Jasher.

"…Is not this written in the book of Jasher…" Josh 10:13

"…it is written in the book of Jasher." 2Sam 1:18

Nathan.

"…written…in the book of Nathan the prophet…" 1Cr 29:29

"…in the book of Nathan the prophet…" 2Cr 9:29

Gad.

"…written…in the book of Gad the seer," 1Cr 29:29

Acts of Solomon.

"…written in the book of the acts of Solomon? 1Kgs 11:41