- Home
- Subject Studies
- Bible Studies
- Bible
- Why believe the Bible? (Part 3)
- Home
- Issue of the Week
- Why believe the Bible? (Part 3)
Why believe the Bible? (Part 3)
- By Dr. Jim Denison
- Published 09/2/2005
- Bible , Issue of the Week
Introduction
In our Friday question we're exploring the crucial issue of biblical authority. So far we've discussed the process by which the Bible was written, its books chosen, its truth inspired. Is there evidence that this content is divine in its origin and authority? Or are we dealing with great literature but nothing more?
This week we'll continue our conversation regarding the trustworthiness and truthfulness of God's word. We're testing the thesis proposed by Francis Schaeffer and many others: I am a Christian, not because of what God has done for me but because Christianity is true. Let's see if we have reason to agree.
The oldest archaeological find which mentions Jesus is a papyrus scrap, dated 100 years after his death and resurrection. Skeptics wonder why we don't have more positive proof of Jesus' earthly existence. Is there archaeological and non-biblical evidence to support our claim that the Bible is God's word, and that Jesus is God's Son?
Such questions appeared to be answered in part by a discovery announced in 2002 and billed as the greatest find in biblical studies since the Dead Sea Scrolls. The center of attention was a limestone ossuary (burial box or coffin). Dated by historians to the first century, the box itself was not significant, as we have many such limestone boxes from the time of Jesus. What was unique was the inscription on the side: "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus."
It was typical to place the name of the deceased on the side of his burial box, and that of his father. But to identify a person by his brother was extremely unusual in the ancient world. And to give no clarification except the brother's name meant that the brother was noteworthy in his own right.
So it was that historians were immediately fascinated when the box came to light. Scores of books and articles were produced by scholars on both sides of the argument. Now historians have largely concluded that the inscription "brother of Jesus" is fake, added much later than the original. And so we are left where we were.
But where we were is a good place to be.
