On The Abrahamic Faiths: Part I, Judaism

         

The Abrahamic Faiths: Faiths recognized as being linked directly to Abraham.

         I thoroughly enjoyed combing through my old college notes to refresh myself on Judaism and Islam, in particular.  I'll do a more in depth article on Islam when I write on the Crusades, of which there were eight by western standards. My education is primarily focused on western history so, needless to say, I found it difficult to "trim the fat" in the section on Christianity.  The words flowed and time past quickly but I find that, the more natural words come, the more unnatural they appear in print so I decided,Seven-thousand words later, to seek a fresh perspective.  My Sister, Shanna graciously agreed to proofread my post, and wisely suggested that I post it in sections.  Each post will be in the order they (the faiths) appeared in history, and I will address only the official denominations (as briefly as possible.) Enjoy!

JUDAISM 2900 B.C.-A.D.77

Origin: “Father Abraham had many sons”

Though the Bible begins with the creation of the Earth, the religion of Judaism begins with God calling Abram to gather his house and leave Ur.  (Abram became Abraham after his covenant with God, a sign of transformation and commitment.)  God led Abraham to the Promised Land- an epic journey that birthed many of the Jewish traditions we see today, such as:

·         CIRCUMCISION

                God led Abraham to circumcise his people as a sign of commitment to God and the covenant with his people.  Circumcision was not unique to the Israelites and has served as signs of commitment and purity in other faiths.

·         ZIONISM

                God called Abraham to Canaan where his descendants would become a mighty Nation.  Due to famine, the descendants of Abraham (a powerful tribe) left Canaan for Egypt.  The Egyptians were threatened by the power of the Israelites and they eventually fled back to Canaan- a move known as the Exodus.  The land that Abraham acquired in Canaan had been absorbed by other city-states.  Though Moses led the Exodus, the re-conquest of their ancestral lands fell to Joshua.  Joshua embarked on a successful campaign against the inhabitants and retook the land.  Israel remains a vital component of Orthodox Judaism, inseparable from God’s covenant with his chosen people. 

 THE MOSES EFFECT

                God set restrictions on various activities and actively guided Abraham and many in his household, but the development of most of the specific laws found in the Abrahamic faiths came from Moses, not Abraham.  While Abraham is important to the Jewish Covenant and the state of Israel, Moses is the doctrinal patriarch.  The fundamental Jewish traditional laws are called the Halakhah (Laws of Moses).  Moses was the adopted son of a Pharaoh; he left his adopted family and was led by God to return his people to Canaan.  The journey, like Abraham’s, was of epic proportions and full of conflict, drama and miracles such as the Ten Commandments and the parting of the Red (or Reed Sea, depending on translation).

Over the next several centuries, Judaism put less and less emphasis on interacting with God, and when the Temple of Solomon fell (70 A.D.), so did the connection with God.  Post temple/Rabbinic Judaism is the brand of Judaism today.  Christians may expect to see Pharisees walking to synagogue, but, unfortunately, the era of the high priests and the Holy of Holies is long gone in Judaism.

The destruction of Biblical Judaism, was finalized around A.D. 135.  The Roman Emperor Hadrian was tired of pesky rebellions, so cut his losses in Britain and built his famous wall but put his foot down in the Hebrew kingdom.  It was arguably the first Genocide of the Jewish people in recorded history.  Hadrian not only slaughtered the people, but burned the cities to the ground, plowed over them, and renamed them. 
 (*Interestingly, History remembers Hadrian as one of the Five "Good" Emperors... His despotism was probably overlooked because of his good social welfare programs, and persecution of business owners, just a theory though)
The Jews, though many escaped and returned later, were forced to refocus and practice their faith in the "diaspora." (*any land outside of Israel) 

 I'm pretty sure it looked something like this:

 

 Sorry for the poor rendering, it was drawn by an eye witness while riding on a donkey cart, or so I'm told >.>

MODERN JUDAISM (A.D.77-Messiah)

                Modern Judaism is a non-evangelical faith based on many Laws.  There are not only the Laws of God and Moses but those of the Rabbis that came after: the Torah (Old Testament) & the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara, oral law and discussion).  Today, like Christianity, there are three brands of Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, and Liberal/Reform.

Judaism varies according to practice- some follow the Halakhah and the Aggadah (Non-legalistic rabbinical writings) more closely than others.  True Judaism, as it is understood in Israel, is Orthodox Judaism.  They are very traditional people- I’ll not delve into to Jewish religion in this blog, as the section on Christianity will be pushing the reader’s patience.  Suffice it to say that Orthodox Jews are the only officially recognized Jews in Israel.  They may only wed other Jews, and they must observe the laws and traditions to the letter, including appearance.  The difference between Conservative vs. Orthodox Judaism is similar to Christian Protestant vs. Catholic. 

Conservatives believe much the same as the Orthodox Jews, but they believe some traditions, like dress, must change with time.  Liberal Jews make up some seventy percent of Jews in the United States.  Their beliefs range from fairly conservative practice to Jewish heresy.  “Liberal Jews” are difficult to spot, as they may have body piercings, tattoos, and/or other displays of non-conformance not found in the Orthodox or Conservative movements.  Most Liberal Jews are Jew in name and heritage rather than in religious practice.

 As always, your comments (on the blog) are appreciated

On the "Iraq Civil War"

 

The Iraq “Civil War”,

    I enjoy discussing and reading about current events but because I prefer to deal with facts than conjecture, I rarely write about them. However, yesterday I had several conversations with people, and I heard the “Talking heads” on the news stations stammer on about what the headlines are calling: The Iraq “Civil War”.
Iraq was home to the world’s first super power so, unlike the unruly culture in Afghanistan, a stable nation can and will exist there.  The question is, why all of a sudden did Iraq irrupt into this supposed civil war?  There is no simple answer but so far, the U.S. reports I’ve read are so far off base its embarrassing. 

Divided Culture

Iraq, as we know it today, was created by western nations with absolutely no knowledge or care of the cultures that they chose to box in on a map and assign it a name.  Culturally speaking, Iraq should be two nations: Kurdistan and Iraq.  Sectarian violence has plagued the Kurdish people in Iraq since its inception.  Also, before Saddam ran most of them off, Iraq claimed one of the largest Jewish populations in the diaspora.  Despite the Baath party’s best efforts to create a unified culture through ethnic cleansing and intimidation, Iraq remains a diverse and resourceful nation.
Division breeds conflict and conflict is nothing new to Iraq.  One of the reasons that the U.S. knew Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was because informants and secret intelligence forces reported them.  Many people in the U.S. and around the world, now believe President Bush made it up just to go to war.  I, the Iraqis, the Kurds and anyone else who has bothered to go against what the U.S. media said and actually look into it, know that WMDs were used by Saddam on the Kurds in an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq.  The fear and intimidation caused by the Baath party remains in the hearts of the people today, who fear that another repressive government will return.

Sunni vs Shia

    Islam has been the dominant religion of the Middle East since the 7th century A.D. when Muhammad united the Arab tribes, promising them power and influence over the aristocracy.  He created a religion that spread by force very rapidly but died without leaving a clear plan for succession over his newly conquered empire.  Perhaps his 9 year old wife was infertile?  In the ensuing grab for power two factions emerged claiming to be the true inheritors of Muhammad’s empire and faith, we call these two factions the Sunni and the Shia.  They have been competing for power and influence as “The true faith” ever since.
Shia Ali- Meaning, the Party of Ali was the party that believed that Muhammad’s son-in-law should inherit his empire
Ahl as-sunnah- Meaning, the people of the community believed that Muhammad’s adviser and one of the most successful military commanders (Abu Bakr) should control the empire.

Current Political Setting

    Keep in mind that the Democratic Government in Iraq is in its infancy.  The Prime Minister has managed to hold onto power for two terms but, now that the United States has abandoned the nation before the government solidified itself… again… (The first time was in the Gulf War)  How will the fledgling government solidify such a divided nation?  Let’s look at the current political atmosphere:

U.S. power (Economic and Military) has declined sharply in the last 6 years, President Obama has arguably, the weakest foreign policy in U.S. History. This administration repeatedly allows it's interests to be challenged and attacked without repercussions.  It has also failed to support her Allies.

Russia is expanding rapidly, (economically and militarily).  It has been engaged in active insurgent and outright military actions to conquer territories and resources, virtually unchecked.  Russia has secured major trade agreements with China and controls much of the oil that the EU depends on.  Russia has connections with and supports hostile nations like: Syria and Iran.
Russia, Iran and Syria have much to gain by securing access to Iraq’s resources.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - the organization leading the attack on Iraq.  They are NOT loyal to the nation of Iraq, nor do they want a democratic government.  They are a Sunni insurgency.  The goal of the ISIL/ISIS, is to install a Sunni government (Caliphate).  These are the rebels that Obama wanted to support in Syria.

Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki, is the Prime Minister of Iraq.  He is a Shia Muslim, has lived in Iran and Syria and fought the Sunni Baath regime for decades alongside other guerrilla/insurgent/terrorist groups.  Iran has sent troops into Iraq to help Iraqi forces turn the tide against the Sunni forces.

Conclusion

I believe that Maliki is making his play for power and that given the political climate, he is better off allying himself with Russia and his old friends in Syria and Iran, than with an impotent U.S.  The Civil War in Iraq is not, by definition, a Civil War.  The Insurgency is primarily a foreign one, likely receiving help from members of our own government.  The majority of the Iraqi people are thankful that the U.S. freed them from oppression but the U.S. does not want Iran to gain further power/influence.      What we see is not a civil war at all, but an invasion that has little to do with Democracy and everything to do with power/influence. 
It is reminiscent of the annexation move we witnessed in the Crimea a few months ago.  I believe that Maliki will use this to gain power and ally himself with our enemies.  I’m reminded of the “People’s revolution in China”.  The U.S. helped China fight a mutual enemy (Japan) but instead of gaining a friend they supplied an insurgency only to gain an enemy.  The U.S. had the same problem with Cuba, and since Democrats obviously don’t study history, we will probably watch another Democrat throw another potentially free nation to the wolves…..  I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

On The Bible

 Is the Bible just like all other books, in that it was written by man and subject to man’s error, available today the same as the original work? Or has it been corrupted, amended or mistranslated over time? 

Part I

                The purpose of this essay is to briefly but as thoroughly as possible, explore the evidence of canonicity and divine inspiration of the Holy Bible.  It would stand to reason that the Bible, like most ancient religious texts, is the product of many hands and “versions” that are inevitably influenced by the bias of the author and events of the era.  Many scholars agree that the Bible was written in similar fashion.  The Old Testament was passed on orally and eventually written down in various interpretations of the oral tradition with added current or relatively current events.  The multitude of texts and oral histories were finally compiled into a seemingly cohesive document, sometime in a period known in Jewish/biblical history as the Babylonian Exile.  The New Testament is often thought to have been written many years after the events they claim witness to.  The New Testament is largely attributed to the Apostle Paul, who never actually knew Jesus.  The earliest known “Bible” was written by the heretic Marcion around 140 A.D.  The earliest copy of the Bible we know today was the Vulgate, which wasn't written until the late 4^th century.

                Is it any wonder then that Christians meet with such criticism in academia?  Yet the historicity and canonicity of the Bible continues to be debated.  Modern scholars face opposition from religiously motivated authors such as Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, and Simcha Jacobovici whom staunchly challenge the academic establishment.  According to many apologists, the Bible is the inspired word of God and thus above reproach.  To question its canonicity is to question the validity of the religion itself.  If the Bible is not the word of God, then there may as well be no God.  In the face of scientific discovery, The Church, as it were, has split into two camps:  The Fundamentalist camp, which holds to traditional Church doctrine and the Modernist Camp, which believes that there is no need of competing Doctrines; that of science and that of “the inspired”.  The Modernist believes that science and reason are all that are needed and should not be enemies of religion.  They feel the Church and all faiths for that matter, should receive wise teachings without seeking to prove the improbable or believe the impossible. 

                I will begin with an excerpt from one of my favorite church Fathers, I apologize for the length but I feel it is important for the discussion.  Though I’m writing on this topic because it is considered to be a modern, and common debate; as Solomon said: “There is nothing new under the sun”.

Objection 1: It seems that, besides science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in science. Therefore any other knowledge besides science is superfluous.

Objection 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in science---even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides science, there is no need of any further knowledge.



On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides science built up by human reason.  Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Is. 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Reply to Objection 1: Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Ecclus. 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.

Reply to Objection 2: Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation.  Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.   - Summa Theologia by St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 A.D.)

                So, the highlights from what St. Thomas Aquinas said above, (Like a speech from Al Gore, material from the Middle Ages tends to cause many people’s eyes to glaze over): Other than the fact that Christopher Columbus did NOT discover that the earth was round, (or anything else for that matter) science and God are related but in different realms.  For instance, the book of Exodus (Inspired by God) describes several plagues that fell upon Egypt in rapid succession.  In 1986 those same plagues fell upon a village, also in Africa.  Science can now explain all of the plagues recorded in the Book of Exodus, so through different means, man and God reveal fantastic events.

  Science can reveal things as God does; in fact all of the fathers of science believed that God had called them to reveal his creation to glorify his name.  Aquinas also points out that science should not be used to explain everything.  Evidence may be plentiful yet not concise or repeatable.  History, as you and I have been taught, changes as new evidence is discovered. 

History and science have been falsified, manipulated, and confounded consistently since its inception.  History in particular is based on pieces of evidence that are collected from multiple sources, then compiled, thoroughly evaluated and discussed before being considered historic “fact.”  Historians make a living debating history, they are able to do so because much of our history was pieced together from multiple sources and many of those sources were not firsthand accounts. Often the closest we get to firsthand accounts come from copies of copies of copies.  Occasionally biographies are used as a primary source and offer invaluable insight.  Biographies are indeed great, but unless they can be compared/contrasted with a contemporary’s biography, or other firsthand evidence the story is one-sided at best and a “Fish story” at worst.

  Ramses was probably the reason for the saying “History is written by the victor”.  He systematically destroyed any evidence he could find of his predecessors and put his name and face in their stories and on their monuments.  Much of what we “know” about Ancient Egyptian history comes from the records left by the Pharaohs. 

Ramses, Egyptian fishing tournament championship 

Part II

                I answer that:

According to the rubric used by modern historians. the Bible we commonly use today (The King James Version) does contains the original Gospel. The sources and the accuracy among many other factors that I will delve into shortly, present an argument for canonical validity that could stand to any reasonable challenge.  Furthermore, I believe that there is even an argument to be made for Divine inspiration of the Holy Bible.

                The theory stated in part one, of the compilation of the Old Testament, is known as the Documentary hypothesis.  The key word there is hypothesis, there is no evidence that what Christians call: “The Old Testament”, was compiled in Babylon as the theory suggests.  The argument they present is based on seeming contradictions or inconsistencies in the text, such as the second creation story in Genesis and the two names used for God: Elohim and Yahweh.  The theory was largely based on the fact that there was no evidence the ancient Israelites were an organized, let alone literate people until well after the alleged authorship took place.  This all changed however, with the dawn of the 21^st century.  Multiple discoveries have been made by archaeologists that validate the Biblical narrative; the inscriptions of events along with ancient scroll fragments which have been found, confirm the accuracy of Old/New Testament translations.  Even events, like the Davidic Kingdom were thought to have never happened but new evidence seems to say otherwise. (As this is a blog meant to encourage study, aaand the thought of combing through my disorganized notes for formal citation makes me want to shoot myself, I’ll provide a keyword list at the conclusion of this article for those that wish to do further research/check my sources)

                There is truth in the claim that oral history was an important part of ancient Israel (that tradition continues today) but the fact that is often left out is oral tradition was a vital part of nearly all known ancient civilizations.  There was no Netflix back then, if you wanted entertainment in Ancient Greece for instance, you would go to the assembly and listen to an epic tale like, the Iliad (The earliest known copy of which was made 500 years after the first is thought to have been written).  At the assembly if the player got the story wrong, the audience would correct him.  History and the religious stories of the day were all passed down orally and with careful accuracy. 

One of my favorite examples of oral history are the Viking Sagas.  Other than a few Runes, there is no written Viking history.  Viking mythology was compiled from oral traditions and their sagas/histories likewise were passed down from father to son.  Archeology has unearthed evidence and documents that reference the people and events described in the oral traditions such as: the legendary exploits of Leaf Erikson, Ragnar and Rollo; all are no now considered to be historically factual.  Oral history continues to be used today, The History Channel itself is a fine example of Oral History.

When I was working on my Religious Studies Minor at the University of Houston, I took a class called Intro to Judaism.  I thought: “Easy! I know the Bible so, I know Judaism.” Sure I knew there had been a few changes, here and there, some Rabbi invented the Bagel, and they traded their striped robes and sheep in for tiny hats and jewelry…  Well, turns out, there’s a bit more to it.  Just so we focus on the discussion at hand, I’ll explain the role of the Scribe.  Each Torah is hand written on the skin of a pure animal.  Each letter and space between them is counted.  The name Scribe in Hebrew means “counter”, in order to become a scribe you must first memorize the Torah in its entirety.  If a space or a single letter is discovered to be incorrect, the Torah is invalidated and must be taken back to the scribe.  The accuracy of this method was proven when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered.  The Dead Sea scrolls matched our modern copies.

What about the New Testament?  How can we believe that some ignorant monk in a Dark Age monastery copied the Bible by candlelight, let alone translated it accurately? 

This question is one that I hear often from historians with PhD attached to their name.  It is actually an easy question to answer:  That’s not how it happened!   There is ample physical evidence to back that statement up.

  Jesus’ disciples, apostles and followers were from all walks of life.  That trend was true then just as it is now.  Christianity spread in a time and place when many of the people were literate and educated.  Sermons were passed on orally but they were also documented.  The Apostles recognized early on that the Message of Christ was the most important thing in/to the world.  They also knew that Jesus was not the first “Messiah” and surely would not be the last.  The Bible itself addresses such apostasy and false witness as a problem.  Therefore the early church fathers began to compile the true Gospel and share it with the church immediately.

Where is the evidence? 

The first complete Bible that we have evidence of as mentioned in Part I, is from Marcion.  Marcion took the existing Bible, removed the items that he didn't like and kept what he did for his followers.  (Like Thomas Jefferson, with his Deist Bible, he first needed a Bible, in order to alter one) The hard evidence for an ancient Bible that was complete with a list of the books matching our contemporary Bibles (Including apocryphal texts) is the Muratorian Fragment  (A.D. 170), which lists the New Testament books that we know today.   We also have letters and other writings that contain quotes of the early church fathers that match the scriptures we have today.  Previously the only evidence of the 1^st Century Gospels we had was St. John’s Fragment (aka P52) which was unearthed in the 1930’s and is on display at Ryland’s Library. 

           

The following is an excerpt taken from an old article from Duke University’s Special Collections Library:

Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.

ca. A.D.                         200             250                                  300             350             450

Matthew                                                                 P45                                 B                  Sin.      

Mark                                                                      P45                                 B                  Sin.             A

Luke                                                                        P4,P45,P75                  B                  Sin.             A

John                                                   P66             P45,P75                         B                  Sin.             A

Acts                                                                       P45                                 B                  Sin.             A

Romans-Hebrews                             P46                                                      B                  Sin.             A

James-Jude                                                                                                  P72,B         Sin.             A

Apocalypse                                                          P47                                                      Sin.             A

As you can see, from the fourth century onwards the material base for establishing the text of the Greek New Testament is very good indeed. The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable. The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.

More discoveries are being made as Biblical Archeology progresses.  Another discovery was made in 2012 of a first century copy of the Gospel of Mark, each discovery affirms the accuracy of the Gospel’s transmission through the ages.

What about translation?

The method for translating the New Testament varies greatly from that of the Old Testament.  The argument for the Lone Monk Translation comes from the legendary St. Jerome.  When he wasn’t pulling thorns out from lions’ paws, he was sitting alone in a cave in Bethlehem, writing the Vulgate.  St. Jerome was an amazing man and from what I’ve read, he sounds like the kind of guy I would want to hang out with.  He was a scholar and arguably the most learned man in church history, that being said, he knew that singlehandedly compiling scripture and translating ancient text could not render an accurate document in any reasonable amount of time. 

                The Reformation

The first printed Bibles of course were products of the reformation:  The Gutenberg Bible, the Tyndale/ Wycliffe Bible, the Geneva Bible etc.   Minor changes were made such as; Peter being called to lead the church, was changed to Peter being called to lead the congregation.  Many argue that this was a slight to Catholic authority. The Catholic Church responded to such challenges to their authority by what seemed to the Protestants as flaunting their own corruption, they canonized the Apocrypha.  Though, Tyndale lived to challenge the authority and corruption of the Catholic Church, his translation was closer to the Greek than the Catholic translation.  (The original texts use the word assembly)  In the defense of the Catholic Apocrypha, if you recall the list in the Muratorian Fragment, those texts were recognized as being latter documents but still important and acceptable to teach from, alongside the older scriptures and remained separate from the Old and New Testament, thus their authenticity will not be addressed.  They are not heretical documents, as perceived by the protestant church.

King James

                King James was a Scott, and thus a catholic.  England at the time was on the verge of civil war.  The Protestants and the Catholics were dissatisfied with the crown’s attempt to create a Church compromise that would satisfy the Catholics’ desire for church hierarchy and tradition and the Bible focused protestant movement.  King James commissioned an official Bible to be translated from the oldest texts available by a team of scholars as diverse as the Disciples and Apostles themselves.  The ecclesiastical scholars were from both rich and poor families.  They were Catholics and Protestants, Saints and sinners, (one scholar had even served on a pirate ship that raided Spanish ships and colonies in the Caribbean).  These 50+ men were divided into teams; each given a section of scripture to translate and upon completion passed the translation onto the next team until every document was reviewed by multiple experts.  The creation of the King James Bible rivals modern day quality control measures, which were not adopted by secular science until well into the 20^th century.  

Well known Historical sources:

                Aside from matching text, text fragments and inscriptions, there are contemporary letters that quote early scripture and events that are said to have happened during the time of Christ.  Jewish historian, Josephus is the leading secular source to the events of Christ and the early church.  Church history is a literary history.   There are countless documents that prove the historicity, canonicity etc. to be more reliable than any accepted ancient historical source.  All of the historical evidence below is debatable but the evidence for the authenticity of the Bible when compared to sources, oft quoted but seldom questioned, stands head and shoulders above the rest:

AUTHOR	WHEN WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	TIME SPAN	# OF COPIES
CAESAR	100-44 B.C.	A.D. 900	1000 YRS	10
HERODOTUS	480-425 B.C.	A.D. 900	1300 YRS	8
THUCYDIDES	460-400 B.C.	A.D. 900	1300 YRS	8
PLINY THE YOUNGER	A.D. 61-113	A.D. 850	750 YRS	7
THE NEW TESTAMENT	A.D. 40-100	A.D. 125	25 YRS	24,000+

Inspired or not?

                Divine Inspiration is one of those divine sciences that cannot be repeated in a laboratory and thus my argument is purely circumstantial.  No other text in the history of mankind has ever met with such animosity as the Holy Bible.  Kings, Caliphs, Sultans, Dictators, and etc.  Have all sought to destroy and or alter the Word of God.  It began with the very first followers of Christ and continues today, yet it has remained the most powerful, influential and widely read book in the world.  No other book has remained in continuous print for so long.  No other ancient document has the amount of credibility of authenticity as the Holy Bible.  I’ll conclude with a quote, “Fictio Cedit Veritati”. (Fiction yields to the truth)

key word source list

JMcDowell	Dr.Pellegrino	Stele of Mycenae	Sir Frederic Kenyon	Ludovico Antonio Muratori	Old Testament(J,D,E,P)	Tyndale	Council of Carthage
Jacobovicci	El Arish inscription	Dr.Garfinkel	O’Callaghan	Hans Lietzmann	Marcion	Wycliffe	Ignatius
Strobel	Ron Wyatt	Qumran	Daniel Wallace	Kliene & Bonn	John Layfield	Summa Theologia	Polycarp
W.C. Placher	Lake Nios	Codex senaticus/vaticanis	Muratorian Canon	Siani inscription	Alister McGrath	Robert Beckfort	Josephus

[Also, I have a basic understanding of the Ancient Greek language & have seen the original scriptures in person.]