Judging the authenticity of the Biblical literature

Judging
the authenticity of the Biblical literature

Bible
should be judged on scientific grounds - grounds which are helpful in defining
the authenticity of any other old document. A document is first examined
internally and then externally. Internal evidence is the study of the text
itself while the external evidence is the study of the historical process
through which the text was transmitted to us.

Internal
evidence
deals with the content while the external evidence deals with the process of its
transmission. If the text suffers from errors and inconsistencies, we do not
need to go for the external evidence. For example if a fragment purporting to be
Shakespearean in origin talks of King James, we cannot reject the fragment on
this basis alone and need to look for external evidence. But if such a fragment
talks of King James traveling in the Space Shuttle Columbia and using Pentium
Computers, we would be obliged to reject it right there as a Shakespearean
writing and would not waste time in examining external evidence. This shows that
internal evidence overrides external evidence. However alone, internal evidence
is not sufficient to prove that a document is Shakespearean.

External
Evidence
studies the modes of transmission and in case of Bible, asks the following
relevant questions:

To
which prophet or messenger was it revealed?
Was it written down
during the prophet's lifetime?
Was it written
verbatim or only the sense was conveyed in the words of the scribes?
Was it written down in
the Prophet's language? For if it was written down in another language, it
underwent translation even before it could be preserved, which reduces the
authenticity.
If it was written down
after the prophets death, how long did it take - one or two years or one or two
centuries?
Did the prophet
approve the document?
Was it preserved
through oral tradition also?
After being written
down, how many people received it and handed down the document to the next
generation? Was there only one person, or were there two, three or four? Or were
there thousands who received it from the Prophet and conveyed it to the next
generations?
If there were
thousands in each generation, it means that it becomes indubitable. But if there
were five or six transmitters, who were they? What was their character, memory
and understanding?
If there were few
people transmitting it in each generation, we have to see whether they received
it personally from another person of their preceding generation. If Mr. A
received it from Mr. B we have to see whether Mr. A met Mr. B or not, for if he
could not meet him (because A was born after the death of B, or A lived in
London and B lived in Damascus and they never traveled out of their places) then
the continuity of chain is broken.

Internal
Evidence:

Following
are a few examples of inconsistencies and errors in the Bible:

Pentateuch:
It is believed that the Laws or the first five books were written by Moses. But
it contains the details of Moses' death and burial. In the last book of the
Pentateuch we find the following passage: 'And Moses the servant of the Lord
died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley
opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. Moses was a
hundred and twenty years old when he died (Deuteronomy 34:5-7). Obviously, if
Pentateuch had been authored by Moses, these verses could not find way into the
text. It appears that they were added later. Moreover, the phrase 'to this day
no one knows where his grave is' shows that these additions were made quite
some time after the death of Moses.
Gospel of John: It is
believed that it was written by John the son of Zebedee. Whereas in John we
find: This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them
down. We know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24) This shows that John was
edited by others.
In 2-Samuel 24:9 it
says: And Joab gave up the number of the people unto the king; and there were in
Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword and the men of
Judah were five hundred thousand men. While in 1-Chronicles 21:5 we read: And Joab gave the sum of
the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand
thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred
and threescore and ten thousand that drew the sword. The difference is apparent
and only one of the above statements can be correct.
In 2-Kings 8:26 we
find that Ahaziah was twenty two years old when he began to reign, while in
2-Chronicles 22:2 we find that 'Ahaziah was forty two years old when he began
to reign'. These two statements are irreconcilable.
2-Kings 24:8 reads
that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign while 2-Chronicles
36:9 reads that he was eight years old when he began to reign. The inconsistency
can only be explained by admitting that one of the texts must have been
corrupted.
Genesis 6:19-20 says
that God commanded Noah to carry a pair of each animal in the Ark whereas in
Genesis 7:2-3 shows that he was commanded to carry seven pairs of each. Again, a
contradiction between two consecutive chapters of Genesis shows that even a
single book was compiled by more than one hand, and also permitted later
revisions and additions.
Matthew records: Jesus
sent two disciples saying to them, 'Go to the village ahead of you and at once
you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring
them to me (21:2). On the other hand Mark (11:2), John (12:14) and Luke (19:29)
all mention only the colt.
King Abijah's mother
was Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2-Chr 13:2). In 11:20 of the same
book we are told that she was daughter of Absalom. Then in 2-Samuel 14:27 we
learn that Absalom had only one daughter named Tamar.
The Genealogy of Jesus
Christ given in Luke 3 and Matthew differs in a number of respects.
Matthew
reports: When Jesus came to live in a town called Nazareth, in fulfillment of
what was said by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (2:23) It is
widely accepted that the book in which this prophecy was proclaimed was lost,
because no such prophecy has survived to us in the OT.
Saint Paul cites from
Isaiah: No eye has seen, no ear has heard no mind has conceived, what God has
prepared for those who love him. (2-Cor 2:9) Whereas in Isaiah the correct words
are: Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen
any God besides you who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. (64:4). These
two extracts are clearly divergent and it is difficult to decide whether Isaiah
was corrupted or Paul carelessly copied from it.
There are occasions
when we learn that NT authors were not aware of the OT, or the OT was then
different from what we have now. For
example, Paul in 1-Cor 10:8 says that let us not commit fornication as some of
them committed and fell in one day 23000. Whereas in Numbers 25:9 the correct
number is 24,000. Similarly in Acts 7:14 we find that the family of Joseph when
brought to Egypt consisted of 75 people. Whereas in Genesis 46:27, we find that
they are only 70. The NT authors probably had a different version of OT with
them.
How did Judas Iscariot
die? Mathew states (37:5) that he hanged himself whereas in Acts 1:18 we learn
that he fell and his abdomen burst open.
In
1-John 5:7 the statement comes quite close to the pronounced creed of Christians
on Trinity. "For there are three that testify: the spirit the water and the
blood, and the three are in agreement." However even the New International
Version notes in a footnote: "These words are not found in any Greek
manuscript before the sixteenth century." That is why they are not included in
a number of other versions. Obviously they
were added later to provide scriptural support to the doctrine of Holy
Trinity.
Matthew records: While
he (Jesus Christ) was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said,
'My daughter has just died' (9:18). On the other hand Mark relates: Then one
of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came there. Seeing Jesus, he fell at his
feet and pleaded earnestly with him, 'My little daughter is dying' (5:23).

Bible
is replete with such errors. Those quoted above only give an idea of the nature
of irreconcilable inconsistencies in the biblical text.

External
Evidence

For
the purpose of demonstrating the authenticity of scriptures through external
evidence, we take the Gospel of John as an example.

The
Gospel of John is the fourth gospel and is so different from the other three
Synoptic Gospels that it is categorized distinctly from the other three. The
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) stand together and are in several
respects different from the Fourth Gospel (according to John). They are termed
Synoptic for if their contents are arranged in several columns we will get the
same synopsis or conspectus. This similarity among the Synoptic Gospels is a
moot question but the most widely held theory is that Matthew and Luke depend on
Mark and they have also utilized another source for the sayings of Jesus Christ
known as 'Q' (German Quelle - source). This explanation is known as
the 'Two Source Hypothesis', and needless to say, has its problems. This
also raises a further question - whether the True and Original Gospel, that
consisted of sayings of Jesus Christ and could not survive to us, could be
identified with this Q? In any case, the Gospel According to John is so
different in structure and contents from the Synoptic Gospels that it is said,
'It is unique in every respect'.[1]

Authorship

As
regards the attribution of John's Gospel to an Apostle of Jesus Christ, we are
in total darkness. It is commonly attributed to John son of Zebedee the Apostle
of Christ, which makes it an eyewitness account of Christ's life and works but
there were also dissident voices. K. Luke notes:

Irenaeus
mentions groups who rejected Gospel of John. The Roman presbyter Gaius,
appealing to the differences between Synoptics and Johannine Gospel, concluded
that the later was the work of heresiarch Cenrinthus. Another group that
repudiated the Gospel was the Alogoi. The negative position, it should be
remembered never won acceptance in the early church, and any number of
testimonies can be cited in support of the apostolic origin of the Gospel
according to John.[2]

The
critical position is that the existing Gospel cannot be the work of Apostle John
who was an uneducated and common man (Acts 4:13); besides there are traditions
that he died a martyr's death at an early date. The testimony of Papias of
Hieropolis too has been cited in support of the negative view.

I
was accustomed to inquire about the sayings of the presbyters, what Andrew or
what Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or Jacob, or John or Matthew, or
any other of Lord's disciples; and what Aristion and the Presbyter John,
the disciples of the Lord, say.

The
point here is the double occurrence of the name John, and whereas the
conservatives think that there is question of same person, critics see here as
two different individuals. Some scholars in order to safeguard the traditional
position have suggested that John the Apostle employed a Secretary who was given
the full freedom to write the Gospel as John wanted. To corroborate this thesis
they point out that in antiquity there was a very broad and loose conception of
authorship. This proposal invalidates the argument that a simple fisherman could
not have written such a subtle theological work as the fourth Gospel - even if
we ignore the fact that the subtle Hellenic references and the philosophy of
Logos otherwise suggests a much later date. The style of Synoptic Gospels when
compared with this highly refined philosophical inclination of Gospel of John
clearly suggests a much later date of compilation.

Willian
M. Ramsay states:

The
fourth gospel is given to us as an anonymous work. It is true that all editors
now print as its heading The Gospel according to John, but this is the
editor's title, not part of the text itself. As to the identity of the writer,
the Bible itself simply leaves us to guess.[3]

Then
giving the arguments of those who think it was written by John the son of
Zebedee, Ramsay repeats:

It
must be repeated however that the Gospel comes to us as an anonymous book, Only
very conservative scholars today are likely to ascribe it actually to the pen of
the Apostle.[4]

The
last sentences of the Gospel that introduce some anonymous editors through
insertion of "we" further elaborates this point. We find in the end of this
Gospel the following words:

This
is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we
know that his testimony is true. (John 21:24)

These
words clearly show that the Gospel was later edited by others. Some hold that it
was a Secretary who recorded what John dictated. Others say that it gradually
evolved with contributions from a number of unknown people. The Harper Collins
Encyclopedia of Catholicism holds: John, written in final form around A.D. 100,
seems to have drawn on independent traditions[5].
The words 'final form' show clearly that it underwent a number of stages.
The editor's note referred above leaves anybody guessing what other insertions
could have occurred after the final compilation.

The
internal evidence that this Gospel differs substantially from other means that
the authors of this Gospel were unconnected with the authors and tradition of
the Synoptic Gospels. Mckenzie remarks " Many modern scholars believe that
John certainly knew Mark, probably knew Luke and probably did not know Matthew. [6]
He adds that the differences between John and the Synoptics are great enough to
permit the question whether John is to be classified in the same literary form [genre]
of gospel.[7]

Since
the proposition that this Gospel was written by John the Apostle is difficult to
establish, some modern scholars believe that the tradition of the name and the
composition at Ephesus around 100 are best preserved by attributing the gospel
not to the apostle but to John the Elder, mentioned by Papias. All sources agree
that the Gospel of John was compiled towards the close of the first century[8].
An extremely hypothetical reconstruction of this person identifies him with the
beloved disciple, scarcely more than a boy at the time , the son of a priestly
family of Jerusalem, the eyewitness of some of the events, all at Jerusalem who
lived to old age at Ephesus.[9]

Encyclopedia
Britannica holds that :

John
is the last Gospel and in many ways different from the Synoptic Gospels. . . . .
Irenaues calls John the beloved disciple who wrote the gospel in Ephesus. Papias
mentions John the son of Zebedee the disciple as well as another John the
presbyter, who might have been at Ephesus. From internal evidence the Gospel was
written by a beloved disciple whose name is unknown. Because both external and
internal evidence are doubtful, a working hypothesis is that John and the
Johannine letters were written and edited somewhere in the East perhaps Ephesus
as the product of a school of Johannine circle at the end of the 1^st
century. [10]

Language
of John

John's
Gospel was written in Greek and not in Aramaic the dialect of Jesus Christ.

Summary
of the external evidence on John

Going
back to our criteria let us see as to where does the Gospel According to John
stand:

The
contents of Gospel of John were not revealed to a Prophet of God. It does not
contain revealed material. It was authored by a group of people.
It was not written
down during the life time of Jesus
It does not contain
the words of Jesus except the red lettered verses. It does not convey the words
of Jesus Christ verbatim because its statements differ from the synoptic
gospels.
It was not even
written in the language Jesus spoke.
It was written down
around 70 years after Jesus Christ.
Its contents were
never presented before Christ for approval. Its contents are not even consistent
with the other three gospels.
It must have existed
in the form of an oral tradition for good seventy years before it was finally
written down. We are however in no position to judge the reliability of the oral
tradition since we do not know the names of narrators.
It does not come to us
through the reports of the entire generation after it was documented. Obviously,
the editing, insertions and possibly deletions, that it underwent, could not
have been possible if it was popularly known. It appears that even after being
written down, it remained in oblivion for quite some time to allow the editors
make their contributions.
It is not an
eyewitness account because even if we accept that it was written by John the
Elder in 90-100 AD as held by modern scholars, the author could at best have
witnessed the last part of the life of Jesus and even then he would merely be a
boy.
It was conveyed to us
through people in limited numbers - we even don't know the names and lives of
the transmitters what to talk of judging their reliability.
There is no evidence
that before being written the message was preserved orally in a reliable manner.
There are only three parallel versions available which are different.
It was not transmitted
by the entire generation. It was communicated through one or two anonymous
people whom we do not know. What changes it might have undergone during this
secretive transfer can be imagined.

Other
books of Bible

This
discussion does not preclude that other books of Bible are any more strongly
supported by external evidence. In fact in many cases the evidence is even more
dubious.

Conclusion

The
reliance on Bible as a source of religious guidance is seriously shattered when
the internal and external evidence of the biblical literature is examined. This
leaves us wondering whether such a scripture is authentic enough to entrust
one's worldly life and eternal destiny to it!

[1]
Luke, K: Companion to the Bible Vol 2 P.9, Theological Publications
in India, Bangalore, 1988.

[2]
Ibid. Vol 2, P.42

[3]
Ramsay, William M.: The Westminster Guide to the Books of the Bible,
p.527, Kentucky 1994

[4]
Ibid. P528

[5]
Page 575.

[6]
Mckenzie: Dictionary of the Bible P.448

[7]
Ibid p.448

[8]
Douglas and Tenney: NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, page 310;
'The date and place of authorship was sometime toward the close of the
first century AD, Asia Minor.'

[9]
Ibib p449

[10]
Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia 14:828

Have a Question About Islam?

Judging the authenticity of the Biblical literature

Latest News

Explore

Learn

Participate

© 2026 Studying Islam. All Rights Reserved.