Who wrote the Bible?

Is the Bible historically accurate?

How do we know the Bible has been translated correctly?

Is the Bible text literal or allegorical?

What about the lost books of the Bible?

Which Bible translation is the best?

Who wrote the Bible?

The Bible is a compilation of books written by several authors, each under the inspiration of God[1]. It is divided into the New Testament - books written by contemporaries of Jesus - and the Old Testament - written by several leaders of the nation of Israel over the course of fourteen centuries.

In many of the books the author is identified explicitly in the text, in some cases implicitly by first person account, and in others through reference in other books of the Bible. For the rest, we rely upon tradition, that is, the testimony of Jewish scribes or the early church fathers. Several books have multiple authors, such as the Psalms and Proverbs, where authorship of passages appears in notes accompanying the text. Clearly the historical books of the Old Testament covering many generations are themselves compilations by scribes from Israeli national annals long since lost. Some Old Testament prophetic books (such as Daniel) are compilations of original works by the author together with third person accounts of events in the author's life.

The following tables list authors of the books and the scriptural basis for determining authorship.

Matthew, John, Jude (Thaddeus) and (Simon) Peter were among Jesus' chosen twelve apostles [Lu 6:14-16; Mt 10:2-3; Jude 1], who were eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was also an eyewitness to Jesus following the resurrection and ascension [Acts 9:1-30]. James was the half-brother of Jesus, who was the early leader of the church in Jerusalem [Mt 13:55; Gal 1:19]. Luke was a fellow traveler with Paul [Col 4:14, 2Ti 4:11]. Mark was acquainted with Peter [Acts 12:12] and traveled with Paul and Barnabas [Acts 12:25] and later with Timothy [2Ti 4:11]. Timothy was a protoge of Paul [Acts 16:1-4; 1Ti 1:2]. Silvanus preached with Paul [2Co 1:19]. The only other mention of a Sosthenes is a prominent Jew at Corinth [Acts 18:17], and if this is the same, then (like Paul) he may have at one time opposed the Gospel before his conversion.

Is the Bible historically accurate?

Where the historic narrative of the Bible can be corroborated by archaeology, it proves to be quite accurate, even in details of contemporary life that someone writing well after the fact would not know[13]. The New Testament is corroborated in several points of fact by other ancient documents, and the New Testament itself is the most verifiable of any ancient document. The oldest surviving manuscripts are closer to the event than those of other classic documents including Caesar's Gallic Wars and the histories by Tacitus and Herodotus[14].

The Bible also provides internal evidence that indicates authenticity. The Old Testament is unusually candid about evil done by its otherwise righteous and heroic figures. Examples are David's adultery and betrayal of Uriah the Hittite[15], and Solomon's turn to idolatry late in his life[16]. The New Testament cites the testimony of women, which at the time was invalid in a court of law, as the initial evidence for the resurrection of Christ[17]. The varied accounts of the four Gospels, though in essential agreement, provide variation in detail that would be expected from genuine eyewitness testimony[18]. These are characteristics that would not be expected from legend or contrived tales.

How do we know the Bible has been translated correctly?

As mentioned previously concerning the New Testament, documents and fragments as close as 150 years to the original writing are extant. Subsequent translations to other languages can be tested against these documents. For the Old Testament the timeframe is not as close. However when the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 100 B.C.) were discovered, in which the book of Isaiah was included almost in entirety, it was found that Isaiah as it has been passed down proved accurate compared to this text.

But as to whether the original meaning of the text has been retained successfully throughout the last 3400 years, Jesus gives us the basis for believing this is the case - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."[19]. From this we ascertain that God has and will direct events such that the original word that he gave to men is preserved, and conclude that among all extant documentation, that which is truly His word has been maintained.

Is the Bible text literal or allegorical?

Clearly, the Bible is not uniformly literal in its presentation of events and teaching, but it is seldom allegorical. It should be distinguished as to whether the terms literal and allegorical refer to specific passages of text or a general philosophic approach to biblical interpretation. In the latter case, it comes down to a question of whether the historic and prophetic narrative as presented by the Bible describes real events as they happened (or will happen) or merely legends and moral tales.

In the strictest sense, an allegory is a fictional narrative intended to represent real events. There are cases of this approach in the Bible, such as some of the parables of Jesus[20] and the prophecy of Nathan to David exposing the latter's betrayal of Uriah the Hittite[21]. However for most of the parables and with Nathan's prophecy, there follows an explanation clearly identifying the narrative as allegory.

Where the Bible presents historic narrative it is literal, as corroborated overwhelmingly by the archaeological record and the few contemporary documents that survive. The Bible is replete with idioms, simile and metaphor - devices common to all languages - to describe real events, but this does not mean the events described are themselves merely figurative. Often it is assumed by academics, even those favorable toward the Bible, that historic accounts for which evidence is missing must somehow be legendary, that the text in question is a contrivance or corrupted oral tradition that resembles an event perhaps of another time or in another place or involving other persons from that which the Bible indicates. But there is no evidence to support this view, and so to default to an allegorical explanation for the unproven passages seems irrational.

The issue is more complicated concerning Bible prophesy, a topic requiring more exposition than provided here. But even prophetic visions cannot be regarded as allegorical in the strictest sense as they are not narratives. For example the dreams of Pharaoh of Egypt and those of his servants interpreted by Joseph[22], and of Nebuchadnezzar of Chaldea as interpreted by Daniel[23] are more precisely symbolic and are clearly understood to be so by those who had received them (as opposed to David who took Nathan's account of the rich man who stole the sheep as testimony); but again a literal interpretation follows in the text.

Other prophesies describe visions of a spiritual dimension or counterpart to physical events, where the prophet had to describe a non-physical and quite alien world of angels and other supernatural beings in earthly terms. These cannot be taken as allegorical, but as real activity in another realm, parallel to or generating real events on Earth. Likewise, some apocalyptic prophecy seems allegorical, and did so especially to churchmen of the Middle Ages who found them fantastic. But in our time we find it conceivable that ancient men who had visions of the high-tech future could only describe what they saw in figurative terms, using the most powerful and animated images known in their time - animals, stars, natural disasters, and ancient warfare[24].

Bible prophesy that has been fulfilled has proven to describe real events[25]. These prophecies can be reviewed to understand how the yet unfulfilled prophecies can be judged.

To honestly interpret text means to strive for the meaning the author intended. As noted above, the Bible claims that all scripture is inspired by God, hence it is God's meaning that must be discerned. It does no good to attach interpretations to personal taste or rationalize them to support one's theological or philosophical predispositions[26]. An honest approach will recognize the occasional use of allegory where it is clearly indicated. However to take a historic narrative or narrative prophesy as allegory, makes it easy to dismiss that passage's meaning as subjective or indeterminable, and thereby ignore its implications for both doctrine and one's view of the future. Asserting that the Bible in general is allegorical is more useful for someone trying to avoid rather than discover the intended meanings of its author.

What about the lost books of the Bible?

There are many other texts rejected from inclusion in the modern Christian Bible. The canon of scripture today is inherited from the tradition of the early churches established by the Apostles[27]. Nevertheless throughout the centuries, texts proposed as written by the Apostles, elders or prophets of the Old Testament period have been scrutinized and debated, and the current canon is the survivor of that review. The other texts have been found to be spurious, or uninspired, or simply not original (that is, not from the time of the apostles), and others heretical (that is, contradictory to the body of scripture). So they are not so much lost as deemed lacking. Among these are the Old and New Testament Apocrypha. It should be noted that there are many works that are inspired but do not have the authority of canon. Some are being written today. However the Bible itself refers to some documents that no longer exist, such as Paul's other letters to the Corinthians[28], his letter to the Laodiceans[29], and the Annal of the Kings of Israel and other archives cited in the Old Testament[30]. We can speculate that since these did not survive, God did not regard them as worth preserving, or at least as not having applicability other than to the people of their time.

Which Bible translation is the best?

I can only speak for English language translations, since I am fluent only in English. Indeed no modern translation is without passages of debatable interpretation. But not to hedge, I will recommend any translation whose translators placed accuracy over accessibility as the goal of their effort. Translations that too heavily rely on the modern vernacular and accommodate modern cultural sensitivities tend to compromise and even corrupt the meaning of the text. I suggest NKJV for someone new to scripture, followed by an attempt at some point to comprehend the Authorized King James Version of 1611, despite its 17th century language.

My fondness for the AV (or KJV) is not due to tradition or its poetry, but to its fidelity of translation, not just in textual equivalence, but in force of presentation. This is not to say the AV is perfect. For one thing, the New Testament translation is based on the Received Text (of ancient Greek language manuscripts), whereas in several instances, I give more credence to Majority Text (see the preface to the NKJV for an explanation of the source documents). Nevertheless, the procedure laid down by King James and the intense review and criticism of his committees of translators, and especially their aversion toward introducing innovation to their translation, distinguish their effort as one of highest integrity and reliability[31].