The Old Testament is rejected by a few for various reasons. Some reject it because they cannot comprehend an angry God – a God of wrath (e.g. Canaanite massacre, Levitical punishments etc.). Others reject it because of the miraculous narratives such as the Red Sea parting, Jonah living in the big fish, talking snake etc.
However, scores of Christians believe in the Old Testament. How do we defend the reliability of the Old Testament?
CHRISTIANITY IS SECURE (EVEN IF OLD TESTAMENT IS MYTH)
First things first; those who reject Christianity (because they reject the Old Testament) should understand that their skepticism of the Old Testament offers no valid reason to reject Christianity.
Christianity cannot go bust even if the Old Testament is a myth. This is not to concede that the Old Testament is a myth. But this is an assertion that there are no valid reasons to reject Christianity under the pretext that the Old Testament is hocus-pocus.
Dr. William Lane Craig, in response to a question disputing the credibility of the Old Testament, asserts that the core of Christianity is predicated on the facts of God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection; hence questions about Old Testament’s credibility should not impact the integrity of Christianity, “The unreliability of certain Old Testament narratives would have no impact upon the truth of theism or the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. The questions you ask are thus “in-house” concerns to be debated among Christians. Should we accept the Old Testament as inspired throughout by God? To what extent does inspiration imply scientific or historical reliability? These are, I think, open questions to be discussed. But they should not be obstacles to belief in mere Christianity and, hence, faith in Christ.
So I would encourage you, Jason, simply to bracket these questions until you have made up your mind about (1) whether or not God exists and (2) whether or not He raised Jesus from the dead in vindication of his radical personal claims. If you answer either of these questions in the negative, there’s no reason to be concerned about your questions. On the other hand, if you do answer these questions in the affirmative and become a Christian, then you can proceed to explore your questions further. Don’t get hung up on them now. They’re not deal-breakers.”1
There are reasonable evidences corroborating God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection. Hence, Christianity is secure.
DOUBTS ABOUT OLD TESTAMENT CANNOT DISCOURAGE AN UNBELIEVER
Do not fail to comprehend the other significant assertion made by Dr. Craig. He asserts that the topic of Old Testament’s reliability concerns the Christians and should be discussed “in-house.”2 The unbeliever need not be concerned about the reliability of Old Testament.
The unbeliever should, in principle, be concerned with the facts pertaining to God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection. The unbeliever should believe in Christ because God exists and that God raised Christ from the dead. Hence the onus is on the unbeliever to sincerely study these evidences with a humble and a seeking heart.
OLD TESTAMENT IS RELIABLE: AFFIRMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
It is imperative that the New Testament (authored after the Old Testament) affirmed the reliability of the Old Testament. The reliability of the Old Testament would have been greatly undermined if the New Testament had not affirmed the Old Testament or if it had not quoted the Old Testament.
“Answers in Genesis,” a Christian apologetics ministry, highlights the New Testament’s affirmation of the Old Testament, “The New Testament writers did not doubt that the Old Testament prophets spoke for God. Peter and John saw the words of David in Psalm 2, not as the opinion of a king in Israel, but as the Word of God: “You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David” (Acts 4:25, NIV). Similarly, Paul accepted Isaiah’s words as God speaking to men: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers” (Acts 28:25).
The New Testament writers were so convinced all the words of the Old Testament Scripture were inspired by God that they even claimed, “Scripture says,” when the words quoted came directly from God. For example, “The Scripture says to the Pharaoh” (Romans 9:17).
Clearly, the Lord Jesus Himself believed the words of the Old Testament were God-breathed. In John 10:34 (quoting from Psalm 82:6), He based His teaching upon a single phrase: “I said, ‘You are gods.’” In Matthew 22:43–44 He quoted from Psalm 110:1 and emphasized a single word, “Lord,” to reveal Himself as the Son of God.”3
OLD TESTAMENT IS RELIABLE: TRANSMISSION, ARCHEOLOGY & FULLFILLED PROPHECIES
Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace, who was once an atheist and a cold case detective, has adeptly summarized the case for the reliability of the Old Testament by considering the accurate transmission of the Old Testament text, the availability of archeological discoveries, and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies:4
“(1) The Old Testament Has Been Faithfully Transmitted
(a) Careful Masoretes Subscribed to an Incredibly High Standard
(b) The Dead Sea Scrolls Confirm the Transmission Process
(c) Ancient Sources Confirm the Early Canon of the Old Testament
i. Prologue to Ecclesiasticus
ii. Philo
iii. Jamnia…
(2) The Old Testament Has Been Verified with Archeology
(a) Findings from Neighboring Cultures
i. The Ebla Tablet
ii. Archaeological digs in the city of Bogazkoy, Turkey
iii. Archeological Digs in Sargon’s Palace in Khorsabad…
(b) Extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events
i. The campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak
ii. The revolt of Moab against Israel
iii. The fall of Samaria…
(3) The Old Testament Has Been Confirmed by Prophecy
(a) Accurate Predictions of Ancient Historical Events
i. Babylon Will Rule Over Judah for 70
ii. Babylon’s Gates Will Open for Cyrus
iii. Babylon’s Kingdom Will Be Permanently Overthrown…
(b) The Old Testament Accurately Predicts The Coming Messiah…”
OLD TESTAMENT IS RELIABLE: HISTORICAL RELIABILITY
While studying the reliability of the Old Testament, the work of Dr. Kenneth A. Kitchen, a preeminent scholar in defending the historicity and the reliability of the Old Testament, cannot be ignored. Dr. Kitchen is also an Egyptologist (the study of the archaeology and language of ancient Egypt).
History affirms the credibility of the Old Testament. Dr. Kitchen highlights the following historical aspects to defend the reliability of the Old Testament:
“Primeval History: Shared memories represent one proof of the reliability of the OT. Far antiquity saw the passing of countless human generations, but they kept a living memory of momentous events. For instance, other cultures told stories that are strikingly similar to Noah’s Flood. This is indirect proof for the reliability of the OT…
Patriarchal History: With Abraham we enter the era of the patriarchs (ca 2000-1600 b.c.). Historical records are more plentiful from this point on in history. The patriarchs herded sheep and cattle, ranging from Ur (modern Iraq) down to Egypt. Data from Ur during this era record large flocks of sheep, which fits with OT depictions. Archives from Mari mention Haran, where Abraham once lived. From the time of Abraham down to Jacob, Canaan was a land of independent “city-states” like Shechem, (Jeru)salem, and Gerar. These population centers were sustained by pastures, frequented by local herdsmen and visitors like Abraham and his descendants (Gn 37:12-13). Egyptian “execration-texts” provide extrabiblical evidence of this practice…
Historical Israel: … We have discovered ration-tablets from Babylon for the banished Judean king Jehoiachin and his family for 594-570 b.c. The well-documented Persian triumph in 539 b.c. enabled many exiles to return to Judah and rebuild Jerusalem and its temple, just as the OT says…”5
DO NOT FEAR
Christians need not fear or suspect the reliability of the Old Testament.
For instance, the detractors of Christianity claimed, for many years, that the Old Testament is mythological. Their claim was predicated on their belief that writing was not existent in the time of Moses (cf. Julius Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis). However, R. K. Harrison’s work “Introduction to the Old Testament” and discoveries in archeology proved that writing existed even before the time of Moses.6So it was not the Old Testament that was proved to be a myth, rather the belief that there was no writing in the time of Moses was proved to be a myth.
Therefore, considering all the evidences that are in the public domain establishing the reliability of the Old Testament, Christians can confidently trust the Old Testament.
Endnotes:
Websites cited were last accessed on 24th November 2016.
1http://www.reasonablefaith.org/problems-with-the-old-testament
2Ibid.
3https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/is-the-old-testament-reliable/
4http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/12/10/case-reliability-old-testament-bible-insert/
6http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=860
This article was originally published at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/11/why-should-we-trust-old-testament-old.html
So, what do you do with Christian scholars like Peter Enns who show that the Old Testament is not reliable? Which is what those outside of Christianity have found as well
Enns’ book is worthwhile on many levels. Of note: If one reassigns the genre and intent of X then by definition one does not find X unreliable. We have to be careful with that fact. It’s unclear if Enn conflates the ontological history of becoming constituting “Dirt To Man” (material) for the ontological history of becoming constituting “Dirt To The Adamic” (the immaterial). Given dualism neither is convertible with the other. If Man is entirely material then such can be expunged from one’s analysis. The options for the Christian are many as he merely needs to follow the evidence whether wrt ancient near eastern literary techniques or wrt genetics (and etc.) and that is why it is always amazing how confused the Non-Theist often is on this front.
FWIW:
[1] Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Zondervan.
[2] Webb, Stephen H. The Dome of Eden: A New Solution to the Problem of Creation and Evolution. Cascade Books.
And:
[3] Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.
[4] Walton, John H.; Sandy, Brent. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. InterVarsity Press.
[5] Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press.
[6] Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Baker Publishing Group.
And:
[7] Four Views on the Historical Adam. Lamoureux, Denis; Lamoureux, Denis; Walton, John H.; Walton, John H.; Collins, C. John; Collins, C. John; Barrick, William D.; Barrick, William D.; Boyd, Gregory A.; Boyd, Gregory A.; Ryken, Philip G.; Ryken, Philip G. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
[8] Three Views on Creation and Evolution. John Mark Reynolds; Howard J. Van Till; Paul Nelson; Robert C. Newman. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
[9] Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. Hoffmeier, James K.; Hoffmeier, James K.; Wenham, Gordon John; Wenham, Gordon John; Sparks, Kenton; Sparks, Kenton. (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology). Zondervan.
And:
[10] John F. Haught. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Westview Press. [Chap 4 is tilted “Darwin’s Gift to Theology” which echoes what many have said in various ways: the material diagram in question (in fact no possible material diagram) is not (and cannot be) ipso facto theistic nor ipso facto atheistic.]
[11] Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam, What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Baker Publishing Group.
[12] Marshall, Perry. Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design. BenBella Books. [Included here with the assumption that one has a digital / Kindle version and uses the search option for the word “Adam”]
[13] Treleaven, Carl W. The Unexpected Perspective: The Implications of Darwin and the Big Bang for Christians and Everyone Else. WestBow Press.
And:
[4] Kropf, Richard W. Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
And:
[15] Delio, Ilia. Christ in Evolution. Orbis Books. Note: There is in part some degree of John Duns Scotus’ Primacy of Christ in this particular book, which affirms that the incarnation of Logos is predestined irrespective of sin / no-sin. One can see chapter three, “Franciscan Cosmic Christology” for context.
Lastly:
The complete metaphysic compels reason into the inimitable semantics of necessity, into the syntax of gospel, into a timeless diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum: “[The] very action of kenosis is not a new act for God, because God’s eternal being is, in some sense, kenosis – the self-outpouring of the Father in the Son, in the joy of the Spirit. Thus Christ’s incarnation, far from dissembling his eternal nature, exhibits not only his particular proprium as the Son and the splendor of the Father’s likeness, but thereby also the nature of the whole trinitarian taxis. On the cross we see this joyous self-donation sub contrario, certainly, but not in alieno. For God to pour himself out, then, as the man Jesus, is not a venture outside the trinitarian life of indestructible love, but in fact quite the reverse: it is the act by which creation is seized up into the sheer invincible pertinacity of that love, which reaches down to gather us into its triune motion.” (D. B. Hart)
And again:
“This is true in two related and consequent senses: on the one hand, love is not originally a reaction but is the ontological possibility of every ontic action, the one transcendent act, the primordial generosity that is convertible with being itself, the blissful and desiring apatheia that requires no pathos to evoke it, no evil to make it good; and this is so because, on the other hand, God’s infinitely accomplished life of love is that trinitarian movement of his being that is infinitely determinate – as determinacy toward the other – and so an indestructible actus purus endlessly more dynamic than any mere motion of change could ever be. In him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning because he is wholly free, wholly God as Father, Son, and Spirit, wholly alive, and wholly love. Even the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness.” (D.B. Hart)
Why believe in the OT? The NT? Well, for one thing there’s no rational reason to affirm physicalism / naturalism. And that is where all of the Non-Theist’s confusions, conflations, and straw-men begin.
The packaged ontological history of becoming with respect to Man and Universe as delivered to us in and through the ancient Hebrew is matched by, or is second to, none. As for other concerns about odd or uncanny occurrences, it seems that too often the complaint does not really address anything more than appearances. One has to take care to define all terms by including all available facts wrt ancient near eastern linguistics, as well as archaeology, as well as rational and reasoned approaches to OT claims as we tie such claims into the duo of science and metaphysical necessity. C.S. Lewis said something about reading scripture being for adults, as children too often read about doves and immediately think about laying eggs. Now, that comes in as well in the concept of forcing ourselves to read Scripture as a whole, as a single metanarrative. Whether or not the OT is reliable hinges on multiple vectors, not just a chapter here or a chapter there. The reason any story of reality works that way is because reality itself works that way — it’s one, single metanarrative.
Interesting article. I agree that the evidence for the Old Testament is more powerful, apologetically, than the challenges in it (war, death penalties, etc.) I think WLC is right – we don’t NEED the OT to be inspired for Christianity to be true, although we know that the entire gospel message is based on OT prophesies, foreshadows, and prefigures. Frankly, we don’t even need the NT to be inspired or inerrant – just true. (I believe it IS inspired by God, but apologetically speaking, as long as what is written in it is TRUE, we can establish the truth of Christianity).
Having said that, while I mean no disrespect to those who are Young Earth Creationists, quoting AnswersInGenensis as a source may hurt your credibility here. YEC is a minority position, and generally brings mocking from skeptics. I know Ken Ham and his colleagues are good sincere people, but YEC is impossible to defend scientifically, and is based on bad bible exegesis. We don’t have to agree on origins to be saved (an in-house fight, as WLC might put it), but when reaching out, I would avoid YEC sources. Just one guys opinion.
I always enjoy reading your articles and appreciate the research you do behind them.
Joe
Joe, Thanks much for your kind, generous and encouraging words.
Yes, God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection have enough and more reasonable evidences for their truth claim. That’s enough for people to place their faith in Christ and be saved.
I quoted AiG within the context of NT’s affirmation of OT, and I am sure you would agree with me about AiG’s validity within this context.
Moreover, I neither desire to get into any kind of a debate about the young and old earth creationism [since, IMO, it’s not an essential doctrine for salvation] nor brand AiG as an invalid Christian group for their views on creationism [even if they are incorrect about creationism].
Even if you do not agree with me, I hope you’d sympathize with my thought.
Remain blessed, brother
Raj
Raj, I agree 100% with everything you said in your comment. My concern is that I have seen unbelievers quick to pick at things like YEC, so when we quote their sources, even in areas where we agree with them (and I agree with you that their writing on the validity of the OT is good), it might be a distraction to the overall message when reaching out to unbelievers. This is strictly my opinion, of course.
Joe, thanks for taking time off to express your convictions. It’s very useful indeed.
But please consider another dimension. I am unable to unequivocally agree to your point of view because of the existence of 1000s of denominational divisions in Christendom. We Christians seem to quickly negate each other over fringe doctrines. I do not want to give room to that by my actions in any manner whatsoever.
With reference to your very valid thought about doing our best to not distract the unbeliever; IMO, the onus is on the unbeliever to examine the facts of God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection and then place his/her faith on the Lord Jesus.
As much as the young or old earth creationism may distract the unbeliever, I reckon denominational divisions too distracts the unbeliever. But do you not think that these are false distractions for the unbeliever when the facts of God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection remain as solid as ever?
I basically agree. All things equal, I would avoid the YEC controversy, but that is just an opinion issue.
Thank you, Joe. Remain blessed.
Agreed. Appealing to AiG is going to turn off a lot of skeptics, whether or not it happens to be directly about YEC. But as it turns out, the quote above is indirectly about YEC anyway, part of AiG’s attempt to argue that we should interpret the creation stories literally rather than allegorically or as myth. And even just looking at what they say in the quote itself, the position is controversial.
There is no authority to the AiG authors, no novelty in what they say, and no eloquence in they way they say it. So, it makes no sense that I can see to quote them in the first place. And of course there is good reason, as you point out, to *avoid* quoting them.
thanks Ben.
I accept the narrative in Genesis for a somewhat different reason than the AiG folks. I believe Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. were real people not because “the bible tells me so and the bible must be taken literally” but because Jesus and the apostles referred to them as real people. They are also listed in the genealogy of Christ. If they were mythical, the lessons would be the same, but based on the way the NT refers to them, I believe they have to be real people. It doesn’t make sense to mix real people with allegorical people. We don’t say “George Washington’s father was Jeremiah Washington, and his grandfather was Hercules.”
Having said that, accepting the OT characters as real people is very different than taking a super-literal view of Genesis 1 that has a universe of less than 10,000 years.
It’s different with Job. It is possible that Job was not a real person, but a morality play to teach us about God. The lessons learned are the same either way, and the NT does not lock us into a literal reading of Job. My hunch is that Job is a true story, not just a myth, but I think the theology is the same either way. But I would never raise that issue in front of unbelievers, who could then say “see! the bible really ISN’T true.” Thus my avoidance of YEC quotations, even if they are good ones.
In fact, I rarely quote believers of any sort in my apologetics talks and writing. I prefer to quote agnostics and atheists (and jews and muslims on occasion) because I can almost always get everything I need from unbelievers, and nobody can accuse me of just finding people who agree with me.
Joe,
Well it depends on your assumptions I guess. If you hold to inerrancy, then that’s that as far as Genesis goes—it must be true. But if you don’t already hold to inerrancy, then Paul and the author of Luke could have been just as mistaken about the creation story and its cast of characters as the author of Genesis.
From my point of view, it’s just a matter of plausibility. Isn’t the Genesis creation story absurd on the face of it? A supernatural fruit tree in a garden guarded by flaming swords? A talking snake and a woman fashioned out of some guy’s rib? And those are just examples. The whole thing smacks (to me) of fantasy and myth.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Anything is possible, I guess. But it just seems to me far more likely that the story is invented than that it is true. And this is regardless of whether Christianity is true.