Is the Bible Historically Accurate?

How do we know if Scripture is historically trustworthy? This is a question that many have asked, sometimes wondering if the Bible has been faithfully transmitted through the ages. This question is understandable, after all, the books contained in the Bible are ancient. The first books of the Old Testament, the Torah, were most likely written around 1400 BC. Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament to be written, around 430 BC. The first book of the New Testament was likely written in the mid to late 40s AD, while the last book (Revelation) was written around AD 90. That is a long time ago.  

Some question if the Bible is historically trustworthy because the original copies of these ancient books, which we call “autographs,” have either been lost or destroyed. How, then, can we trust that Scripture has been faithfully handed down from generation to generation? Well, there are several ways to attest to the historical trustworthiness of Scripture, I’ll try and outline a few below.  

The Number of Manuscripts

First, the manuscripts are trustworthy in number. Even though the original autographs are no longer available, the Bible has more ancient copies than any other book from antiquity. Indeed, the first ancient manuscript of the Old Testament dates from 250 BC, only 150 years after Malachi. As for the New Testament, we have approximately 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts to use to establish the original wording. Compare these numbers to the works of Plato, which only survive in 7 ancient manuscripts. The works of Homer only survive in 643 copies. Simply put, the Scriptures are the best-transmitted books from the ancient world 

The Accuracy of Biblical Transmission

Second, the manuscripts are trustworthy in transmission. In almost every English Bible, one will find passages that contain textual variants, often marked with footnotes like “other manuscripts read X.” For some people, this calls into question the reliability of textual transmission. What, then, are we to make of these variants?

Though human scribes are fallible, they were also painstakingly precise when copying manuscripts (by sight or hearing). Even more, scholars can trace the variants to the time of appearance or the region in which they appeared. This allows scholars to note the older or more dominant translation as preferable.[1]

Furthermore, translators also navigate variants on external and internal evidence, with reference to theological and literary context. Because of this level of precision and rigor, we would argue that Old Testament manuscripts are at 90% accuracy to the original autographs, and the New Testament is at 97-99%. These percentages are established with little dispute.[2]

But, here is what’s important to remember, even if we were to get all of the variants wrong, no central biblical doctrine would be in jeopardy. Indeed, Article 10 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirms this: 

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

The Biblical Historical Witness

Third, the manuscripts are trustworthy in historical witness. What we mean here is that the internal references within Scripture speak to its trustworthiness.

For example, in the New Testament, there are geographic, familial, and individual references that would have been verifiable by those living at the time of initial circulation. A doubting reader of Matthew could have found and spoken to Simon of Cyrene, who is mentioned in Matthew 27. We might also ask, how did early Christians know about Herod’s suspicions about Jesus or fear of “John’s ghost” in Matthew 14? Well, Luke mentions that one of Jesus’ followers was married to a member of Herod’s court (Luke 8). Even Paul documents historical evidence of the resurrection by mentioning that Jesus appeared to 500 hundred people, noting that many of them were still living at the time of his writing (1 Cor. 15). In other words, Paul was saying to his original readers, “if you don’t believe what I am telling you, go find them and talk to them.”

Much more can be said here, but the point stands—there is both internal and external evidence as to why we should accept Scripture as historically accurate and faithfully preserved.[3] 

______________________________________________________ 

[1] One example is the variant noted in Romans 5:1, where the oldest manuscripts read “we have” (a declaration), and later ancient manuscripts read “let us have” (an exhortation). This variant in Romans 5:1 comes from a difference in one similar Greek letter, the scribe either hearing or seeing an omicron or an omega. This variant effects no change in Christian doctrine.  

[2] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 122.  

[3] Beyond the Bible’s internal claims, even external evidence in ancient writings attests to the historical accuracy of the Bible – from the church fathers to Livy’s Roman History, which has the book of Hebrews written on the back of one of its manuscripts. 

Matt Capps

Matt Capps is the Lead Pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Apex, NC. Matt earned his B.A. at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, an M.Div. with Biblical Languages at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a D.Min. in pastoral theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Ridley College. Matt and his wife Laura have three children.