In addition to individuals or groups with a bias against the Bible, some common arguments are frequently heard. Below are a few of them.
History is unknowable. Since the Bible is a historical book, it does not have any credibility.
Reply: The claim seems remarkable. On what basis is it unknowable? If we can know what we did yesterday and remember what happened last Christmas, don’t we recognize that it is possible to know history? Do we doubt that World War Two or the Civil War occurred? Why can’t we know the more remote past in the same way? If the claim that we can’t know the past indirectly through fragmentary records is true, then how can we know the geological past? Yet no scholar doubts it is possible to know our geological past. The claim is based in skepticism.
Extraordinary events demand extraordinary evidence.
Reply: What would that mean? We accept that the universe has come into existence and don’t have “extraordinary” evidence. We recognize that biological living life has developed from non-living material. Yet both of these events are one-time extraordinary events. We don’t question the possibility of their occurrence. So, we should be open to the fact that other extraordinary events may have occurred.
Reply: This argument states that since we don’t see miracles occurring on a routine basis now, we should not accept their existence in the past. In evaluating the claim, we might want to look at things that do not routinely occur but clearly did occur in the past. Examples might include life’s origin, consciousness’s development, and the universe’s origin.
The NT Witnesses had a religious bias
The question is not whether the authors had a bias but whether they told the truth. We could make an argument that holocaust survivors are biased, but we recognize that they were the best witnesses of what took place in that time in history. It is not unreasonable to point out that critics of the NT also have a bias. Three major NT figures were initially biased against the resurrection. Thomas denied the possibility, while James (as well as his brothers) doubted the validity of Jesus’ ministry. Paul was a persecutor of Christians.
There are many apparent contradictions in the NT testimony.
St. Augustine said, “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, 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. NT scholars would say that contradictions have not been proven, and the existing conflicts support the truthfulness of their testimony. The conflicts show they were independent, and there was no collusion.
We Can’t Trust John
Some scholars claim that John is a problem for the NT. They note that the Gospel of John records different events, relates different discourses, stresses Christ’s deity, and has different times for events. It also has no parables, different miracles, and different vocabulary. In some places, it appears that John is creating, not reporting Jesus’ words.
In response, it is fair to note that we don’t need John for this apologetic argument. The other Gospels and Epistles are sufficient. John gives the same basic story as the others, including all the major events: Jesus was heralded by John the Baptist, preached the Kingdom of God, did many miracles, made a triumphal entry into Jerusalem, was rejected by his people, was crucified under Pilate, rose from the dead, and appeared to many.
The differences are due to stress on early and late Judean ministry, stress on private conversations, and the central purpose (John 20:31). It is also written later using Roman time. It is supplemental in nature. It focused on Jesus’ response when his words were rejected and the author’s desire to show the original’s tone. Translated from Aramaic into Greek It may be a rephrase of his words, that is, we may have only the ipsissima vox (same meaning) rather than the ipsissima verba (same words).
John’s style is not unique, and there are John-like texts in Matt 11:25-27. In parallel passages, the wording is almost word for word. “Take up your bed and walk” Mk 2:11 and Jn 5:8, “It is I Do not be afraid” Mk 6:50 and John 6:20 and “Peace be with you” (Lk 24:36 and John 20:19. The famous “I am” passages are found not only in John but in the synoptic Gospels as well. (Mk. 6:50 14:62)
The use of “Very verily” is unique to John, but it may have been doubled for rhetorical effect. Repetition may reflect emphasis in the original oral statement. See John 13:38, Mt 26:34, and Mk 14:30
Paul invented Christianity, not Jesus. The Epistles are not the same as the gospels.
This claim was answered by J. Gresham Mache’s classic “The Religion of Paul.” It is worth noting that Paul’s associate wrote one Gospel (Luke), so it is difficult to see Paul as unfamiliar with the Gospel or writing a different Gospel. In the Bible, the only early first-century history of Christianity, we have confirmed that Paul taught the same as James and the apostles of Jesus. (Acts 15) Paul’s early writings (accepted by the critics) show that Paul’s teaching was the same as that of the apostles of Jesus. In fact, in Paul’s accepted epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians), 27 teachings mirror teachings found in the Gospels.
The Bible is unreliable.
What does reliable Mean? What is the standard we are setting? For our current discussion, we do not mean it is divinely inspired or inerrant or that it is word for word the same. We don’t have a word-for-word version of what Jesus or the NT authors initially said. Remember, as did his disciples, Jesus spoke in Aramaic (Mt 27:46). The NT is written in Greek. It is not necessarily precise in every detail. However, the NT is history, not mythology, and it is accurate history. If it says Jesus said it, then he said it. If it says Jesus did it, then he did.