Decent introduction to Biblical criticism ( )

Is The Bible True...Really?
Josh McDowell
Dave Sterrett
Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2011

“To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

It is a common evangelistic tactic to plead with the lost that God loves them if they would only respond to the Good News of the Gospel in faith. In a (presumably) post post-modern setting, the unbeliever↽and especially a fanatically militant atheist↽will respond with the statement that they have no belief in a thing that doesn’t exist.
The Dawkins quote above illustrates many things↽ignorance of the Bible’s content, authorship, and related historical details is obvious↽but the quote demonstrates to us that a simple asking of others to “take it on faith” that the Bible is reliable and authoritative will most likely fail to convince. The authority of the Bible may be appealed to by a believer with another believer when they both assume its authority, but preceding the authority of a document, or, in the present context, the case of the Bible (many documents pulled together into one), the question is reliability: Can we trust this Word?
Written in the form of a story, the authors open the ball by addressing doubts being encountered by the main character, college-student Nick, about the Bible’s historical authority. The common objection that we do not have the original manuscripts (autographa), but only copies (apographa) is addressed and soundly answered.
The copies are objected to as being “error-ridden” and different from the originals “in thousands of ways.” Such objections are sometimes couched in the context of intellectual honesty. To deny the assertions would be futile, for the assertions are true, in their way. Admissions to errors in the copies should not be avoided, but the apologist should labor for an opportunity to address the objections in an equally honest intellectual manner.
Nick reaches out to his youth pastor and we are struck by the inadequacy of the response. Christians sometimes fall into doubt and seek assurance from their pastors, who sometimes have not prepared them for the attacks they will and do encounter upon their precious Faith, especially in the halls of the universities and colleges. Replies to such doubts too often take the form of “Look what the Bible has done for me,” or “The Bible is true because of faith.” The former is unhelpful for its subjectivity; the latter for its falsehood. The Bible is true regardless of whether men believe it to be or not.
Feeling “betrayed by Christianity,” Nick meets with his Professor’s new teaching assistant, Jamal, and over coffee he engages Nick’s idea of doing a paper. “What academic sources will you cite to document that the Bible stole from pagan mythology?” he asks. Nick is remiss when he learns that scholars have agreed there is no historical documentation that will support his thesis. As Jamal points out to Nick, there are no resurrections akin to Christ’s in pre-second century literature.
Many facts are adduced throughout this small work that support the reliability of Scripture: the historical background of Scripture (over 40 authors over 1500 years; the Jews recognized Old Testament books before Constantine as early as 4 BC, and no later than 150 BC; Malachi was written between 450 and 430 BC; the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was written between 250 and 150 BC; etc.)
Also addressed are axioms and presuppositions that affect one’s view of Scripture. Anti-supernaturalism (the philosophy of naturalism has an anti-supernatural bias, evidenced by such as Dawkins) is evident in the worldviews of materialism, atheism, and materialism, which each affirm that there can only be a naturalistic or materialistic explanation for everything.
If these worldviews are false, then the the alternate is true and there is another reasonable and rational explanation: Theism↽God exists↽the supernatural is real, miracles are possible, and God has communicated with Man. Anti-supernaturalism is based on an unwarranted assumption, whereas Theism is based on the axiom that “The Bible is the Word of God.” Atheists who demand the right to their anti-supernatural axioms cannot object to ours choosing our own axioms.
Other objections↽such as “We do not have the originals of many ancient works”, or “What about the mistakes in the Bible?”↽are answered. Inerrancy is supported by the use of the bibliographical test: “an examination of the textual transmission by which ancient documents reach us from the past.”
Some questions asked in bibliographical testing are, “Is the original reproduced to a credible degree of certainty? Are the copies reliable? How many have survived? Are they consistent with one another? and, What time has passed between the original and the copy?”
We are free to confess that we do not have the originals of many ancient works, and we admit there are many mistakes in parallel accounts. It is important to recognize that the claim of inerrancy applies to the originals, not the copies.

“...the biographical test determines only that the text we have now is what was originally recorded” (page 86).

The bibliographical test is applied to all types of literature as well as the Bible.
The fact that there are variants in the papyrii that affect the truth of the biblical texts is addressed as well. [A variant is “any instance where the New Testament manuscripts have alternate wordings” (page 81).] A reasonable reply is given, that “When all variations are considered, only about one percent involve the meaning of the text” (page 84).
Quoting the authors of Reinventing Jesus: “The short answer to the question of what theological truths are at stake in these variants is↽none” (page 84).
Then we read of the Internal Evidence Test, and internal criticism.
The short explanation is that the New Testament accounts were written and circulated during the lifetimes of those who knew Jesus. People who read these accounts could confirm or deny the truth claims made by the writers (Acts 2:22; 26:24-26).
The conclusion is:
1. We have evidence that suggest the New Testament we read today is a reliable and trustworthy copy of the originals.
2. We also have good reason to believe that the original accurately portrays to us what Jesus taught and did.
Is the Bible reliable?
“Is The Bible True...Really?” answers the question in a simple and readable format laden with gems of information. The question is posed on page 10 in this way: “What is the historical basis for believing the Bible really is the inerrant Word of God?” Solid scholarship supports an affirmative answer. That the question must be answered in a world increasingly hostile to Christianity in its attack on Scripture is obvious. That a book must be written that highlights the problem that Christians are generally unprepared to combat such attacks is to the shame of the churches. That the churches should distribute such books as “Is The Bible True...Really?” is conclusive. ( )