1. Introduction

Purpose and Scope of the Paper

The Bible has long been revered as a sacred text, foundational to Christianity and a primary source for understanding the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. However, when considered as a historical document, separate from its theological significance, the Bible’s reliability as a source of factual information is highly questionable. This dissertation aims to critically examine the Bible’s status as a historical document, analyzing its factual accuracy, authenticity, and reliability based on historical and textual evidence.

Key questions explored in this paper include:

• How credible is the Bible as a factual record of historical events?
• What role have political and theological agendas played in shaping the Bible as we know it today?
• How reliable are the earliest manuscripts of the Bible, and what does the lack of early manuscripts suggest for its historical authenticity?

This paper will argue that the Bible, while containing elements of historical truth, is not a reliable historical source. The Bible’s text has undergone extensive changes and revisions, influenced by theological needs and political agendas. Consequently, the Bible cannot be regarded as a definitive historical document in the same way other ancient sources are.

Overview of the Bible’s Structure

The Bible is a compilation of sacred texts, divided into two primary sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the sacred writings of Judaism, chronicling creation, the history of the Israelites, prophecies, and laws. The New Testament documents the life, teachings, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as well as the early development of the Christian church.

The Bible has been carefully curated and preserved by successive religious authorities over centuries, yet its historical reliability must be questioned based on several key factors, such as the lack of original manuscripts, theological edits, and political influences.

For a text to be considered historically factual, it must meet certain criteria:

• Contemporary authorship: The writings must have been created in the time of the figures they describe or by their immediate followers.
• Preservation: The writings must have been accurately preserved, ideally without alterations over time.
• Approval: The texts must have been approved or verified by the figures they represent or their closest followers.

By these standards, the Bible falls short, particularly regarding its authorship and preservation over the centuries.

2. The Problem of Early Christian Writings

Lack of Early First-Century Manuscripts

A fundamental issue with the Bible’s historical credibility is the absence of first-century manuscripts. While the events of Jesus’ life are often described as contemporary accounts, the oldest surviving manuscripts of the New Testament texts are from the second century or later. The first-century gap between the events described in the Gospels and the surviving manuscripts is significant, raising questions about the authenticity and accuracy of these accounts.

Bart Ehrman, a prominent New Testament scholar, argues that the lack of early manuscripts complicates the case for the Bible’s authenticity. In his book Misquoting Jesus (2005), Ehrman writes:

“There is no reason to think that the text of the New Testament has been preserved in its original form. The earliest surviving copies are separated from the originals by several decades, and the differences among them are not insignificant” (Ehrman, 2005, p. 10).

Ehrman’s point emphasizes that the gaps in manuscript evidence are significant, as we are left with no early copies that can be directly traced back to the time of Jesus or the apostles. This raises doubts about the reliability of the accounts we now have in the New Testament.

The First Fragment: P52 and the Second Century

The P52 fragment, a small piece of the Gospel of John dating to approximately 125-150 CE, is the earliest known New Testament manuscript. While it provides some evidence of the Gospel’s existence in the second century, it does not resolve the problem of the missing first-century manuscripts. The absence of earlier document fragments raises significant doubts about the reliability of the Gospel texts as contemporary, factual accounts.

As Ehrman further argues in The Bible: A History (2011):

“The lack of first-century manuscripts means that we are dealing with texts that are separated by at least a generation or more from the events they claim to describe. This introduces the possibility of alteration and exaggeration over time” (Ehrman, 2011, p. 14).

The lack of earlier documents also suggests that the Bible as we know it today may not have been written or compiled during the lifetime of the apostles or during the first decades of Christianity.

Historical Context of Early Christianity

Early Christian writings were slow to emerge, and those that did appear were shaped by the theological evolution of the early church. Christianity evolved from a Jewish sect following Jesus’ death to a Greco-Roman religious movement, with Pauline Christianity playing a pivotal role. Paul’s letters, written around the 50s CE, were foundational in shaping the theology and practice of early Christianity, but they were distinct from the teachings of Jesus himself, particularly regarding the inclusion of Gentiles and the abandonment of Jewish laws, including the Sabbath.

The historical emergence of Christian texts was influenced not only by theological ideas but also by church politics, as different factions vied for influence in the developing Christian tradition.

3. The Emergence of Christian Texts and Their Timeline

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD

The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was a landmark event in the formation of Christian doctrine and the Bible’s canon. Convened by Emperor Constantine, the council aimed to establish religious unity across the Roman Empire by defining orthodox Christian beliefs and rejecting heretical teachings. This council also formalized the New Testament canon, deciding which books would be considered scripture and which would be excluded.

As David Trobisch argues in The First Edition of the New Testament (2000):

“The Council of Nicaea had a pivotal role in shaping the form of the New Testament. But this process was not one of inspiration or divine revelation; rather, it was the result of political and theological considerations” (Trobisch, 2000, p. 32).

Trobisch’s analysis reveals that the canonization of the Bible was not a process driven solely by spiritual considerations but was shaped by political power and church doctrine.

The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus

Two of the most important ancient manuscripts of the Bible are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both dating to the fourth century CE. These codices are among the oldest nearly complete Bibles, but they differ in certain texts, showing that the canon was still in flux during this period. The development of the Bible was influenced by theological debates and the consolidation of Christian doctrine during the reign of Constantine and later emperors.

As Bruce Metzger explains in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2005):

“The existence of competing versions of the New Testament in the fourth century demonstrates that the process of canonization was not fully settled at that time. Textual variations reflect differing theological agendas that would shape the final canonical forms of the Bible” (Metzger, 2005, p. 160).

These early versions of the Bible were not the original documents written by the apostles or early Christian leaders but were instead edited versions that reflected the theological and political agendas of the time.

4. The Influence of the Church on the Bible

The Church’s Political and Theological Agenda

The formation of the Christian Bible was heavily influenced by the political and theological agendas of the early church. Church leaders, particularly in the fourth century, were instrumental in deciding which books were included in the canon. These decisions were not based solely on theological considerations but were also influenced by the need to maintain orthodoxy and suppress competing theological ideas.

As Bart Ehrman states:

“The New Testament was not handed down by God but was constructed by human beings who had their own agendas and beliefs about what was correct Christian doctrine” (Ehrman, 2011, p. 25).

The Pauline epistles, which were central to the development of Christian doctrine, played a key role in this process. Paul’s writings, which diverged significantly from Jesus’ original teachings, were included in the New Testament canon to reflect the church’s increasingly Gentile-oriented theology.

Revisions and Changes to the Bible

The Bible has undergone numerous revisions over the centuries, particularly with the King James Bible (KJB), first published in 1611. The KJB is considered one of the most influential English translations, but it contained numerous errors and inconsistencies that necessitated revisions. A group of 50 scholars from various Christian denominations was appointed to review and correct these defects, but the KJB still reflects many of the theological biases of its translators.

F.F. Bruce, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1960), writes:

“Even the most revered translations, such as the King James Version, had defects that needed correction. These defects were often theological in nature and reflected the biases of translators” (Bruce, 1960, p. 143).

Several verses in the Book of Mark, for example, were added in the KJB, such as the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), which were not present in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel. 1 John 5:7-8, a key verse used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, was also added later and is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

The Case of the “Begotten Son”

One of the most famous textual changes is the removal of the phrase “only begotten Son” in references to Jesus. This phrase, which was included in early translations of the Bible, was later removed due to its questionable authenticity. The phrase appeared in the King James Version (John 3:16), but it was later determined to be a later addition, not found in the earliest manuscripts.

5. The “Original” Bible: Which One Is It?

Different Versions of the Bible

There have been multiple versions of the Bible throughout history, each with its own canonical books. The Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Ethiopian Bible each contain differences in both the books included and their interpretations. These differences highlight the flexibility and subjectivity involved in the formation of the biblical canon.

6. Scholarly Criticism of the Bible’s Reliability

Textual Criticism and the Bible

Scholars in textual criticism use various methods to assess the authenticity of biblical texts. They examine manuscripts and textual variations to determine how the Bible has been altered over time. Ehrman and others have argued that the Bible contains numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and theological edits that make it unreliable as a factual historical document.

7. Determining What Is True in the Bible: Comparing with the Torah and the Quran

The Need for Cross-Referencing with Other Scriptures

In order to determine what is true in the Bible, it is important to compare its teachings with other religious texts, particularly the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and the Quran. These texts, which hold significant theological importance in Judaism and Islam, provide a frame of reference for understanding the core beliefs shared among the Abrahamic faiths. By examining these scriptures, we can identify consistent themes and teachings, and highlight those that might have been altered or influenced by later theological developments within Christianity.

The Quran: An Unchanged Revelation

The Quran, considered by Muslims to be the direct word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), is regarded as the most authentic and unaltered scripture. According to Islamic belief, the Quran has been preserved perfectly without any corruption, as stated in the Quran itself:

“Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Quran 15:9).

This assertion is central to the Islamic faith and is taken as evidence that the Quran remains unchanged from its original revelation. Historical evidence supports the idea that the Quran has been preserved with great care from the time of its revelation in the 7th century CE through oral transmission and written manuscripts.

Muslim scholars point to the numerous manuscripts of the Quran and the practice of memorization by generations of Muslims as proof of its authenticity. The consistency of the Quran across different regions and over centuries further attests to the fact that its text has remained unchanged.

The Torah: The Foundation of Judaism

The Torah, which comprises the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), is another foundational text that provides insight into the authentic teachings of the prophets, including those of Moses. The Torah remains the primary source of divine law for Jews and is considered to be the direct word of God. Jewish tradition holds that the Torah was preserved without alteration since its revelation to Moses.

One of the key ways the Torah provides a frame of reference for truth in the Bible is through its emphasis on monotheism—the belief in one God. This belief in a singular, indivisible God is consistent with the teachings of the Quran and directly contrasts with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which is not present in the Torah or Quran. This contradiction suggests that the concept of the Trinity, found in the later parts of the New Testament, may have been a theological development rather than a direct teaching of Jesus.

Shared Beliefs: One God and the Role of Jesus

Both the Quran and the Torah affirm that God is one, rejecting the Trinitarian concept central to Christian doctrine. The Quran consistently emphasizes the oneness of God, referring to Him as Allah, without any division into Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Torah likewise teaches strict monotheism, focusing on the worship of one, indivisible God.

Regarding Jesus, both the Quran and the Torah reject the idea of Jesus as the Son of God or as a divine figure. In the Quran, Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is regarded as a prophet and servant of God, sent specifically to guide the people of Israel:

“Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (Quran 3:59).

Similarly, the Torah speaks of the prophethood of Jesus’ Jewish ancestors and highlights the importance of following God’s commands through the prophets rather than elevating any of them to divine status.

Assessing the Words of Jesus: The Influence of Church Insertions

To understand the true teachings of Jesus, it is crucial to examine his words in light of both the Torah and the Quran. As discussed earlier in the dissertation, there is strong evidence that later alterations in the Bible may have influenced the portrayal of Jesus. The Great Commission and the Trinitarian statements in Matthew 28:19, for example, are often viewed as later church insertions, reflecting the doctrinal debates within the early Christian community rather than the teachings of Jesus himself.

The Quran and the Torah do not affirm any of these later additions. In the case of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost passage in Matthew, the Quran and Torah offer a much clearer picture of monotheism and reject the divinity of Jesus. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ original teachings were in alignment with the message of one God, and that the Trinity and other theological constructs introduced in later Christian texts should be seen as alterations rather than authentic representations of Jesus’ words.

Furthermore, certain statements of Jesus regarding his death and resurrection—such as those found in the Gospel accounts—might also contain insertions or alterations. These texts were written after the events they describe and were influenced by the theological concerns of the early Christian church, particularly regarding atonement and salvation. The Quran, however, presents a very different perspective on Jesus’ crucifixion, stating:

“And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary.’ But they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; rather, [the matter] was made to appear to them” (Quran 4:157).

This verse challenges the traditional Christian narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion and offers an alternative explanation, in line with Islamic teachings.

Conclusion

Summary of Findings

This dissertation has examined the Bible not as a theological text but as a historical document, evaluating its reliability as a source of factual information. Through a detailed analysis of its origins, textual variations, and historical context, we have established that the Bible cannot be considered a fully reliable factual account of the events it describes. Rather, it is a theological document, shaped over time by various political, religious, and social forces, which distorts its historical authenticity.

One of the key findings of this study is the lack of early manuscript evidence supporting the New Testament’s events, especially in the first century. The earliest surviving manuscript fragment, P52, which dates to the early second century, is the only concrete evidence we have of Gospel writings from the time of the apostles. This absence of earlier, direct evidence raises significant questions about the reliability of the Bible as an accurate historical record, especially considering the absence of contemporaneous eyewitness accounts and the lack of first-century writings. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus (2005), have discussed how this gap in early documentation diminishes the credibility of the Bible as an irrefutable source of historical fact.

The emergence of Christian texts, particularly after the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, marked a turning point in the formalization of Christian doctrine and the Bible’s canon. Emperor Constantine’s involvement in shaping the doctrinal trajectory of early Christianity, including the establishment of the Nicene Creed, points to the Bible being heavily influenced by political and theological agendas. This suggests that many of the texts that eventually made it into the New Testament were selected not because of their historical veracity, but because they aligned with the desired theological orthodoxy.

The examination of key biblical manuscripts, including the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, further underscores the Bible’s fluidity over time. Variations between these texts reflect the shifting theological stances and doctrinal revisions of early church authorities. Moreover, the history of revisions and translations, such as those found in the King James Version, shows significant changes made to the Bible, including additions (e.g., the Trinity passage in 1 John 5:7-8), omissions, and rewording of key passages. These alterations further complicate any claims that the Bible preserves the unaltered word of God.

Additionally, the theological motives behind the Bible’s composition cannot be ignored. The fact that later Christian leaders, such as Paul, shaped much of the doctrinal development, diverging from the teachings of Jesus, shows that the Bible as we know it today is not a simple historical record but a collection of theological constructs created to advance particular religious ideas and promote church authority.

Finally, when comparing the Bible to other religious texts, such as the Quran and the Torah, it becomes evident that historical consistency is crucial for validating a religious document as a factual source. The Quran, which has been preserved in its original form since its revelation, and the Torah, as traditionally attributed to Moses, offer a clearer historical foundation for their respective faiths. This is in contrast to the Bible, which cannot claim such unaltered preservation. Thus, the Bible, despite its significance in Christianity, cannot be treated as a fact-based historical document but should instead be understood as a theological and doctrinal guide, shaped by centuries of church influence and revision.

In conclusion, the Bible, while undoubtedly central to Christian faith and doctrine, does not serve as a reliable source of historical fact. Its teachings reflect the beliefs, doctrines, and agendas of the early church, making it unsuitable as a factual account of the events it describes. The historical authenticity of the Bible is compromised by its editorial revisions, theological insertions, and the lack of early, corroborated manuscripts. The findings of this dissertation make clear that the Bible cannot be used as an irrefutable source of historical evidence and should be viewed primarily as a theological document shaped by centuries of religious and political forces.