There are a lot of problems with the historical reliability of the Christian biblical texts, which is a problem for Christians when they have to argue for the credibility of their own faith. Most Christians, for their faith to make sense, need the biblical texts to have a high level of historical reliability.
Take, for example, the letters of Paul in the Bible. The consensus among mainstream historians today is that only seven (maybe six) of the letters attributed to Paul in the Bible were actually written by him. The rest are forgeries written by others pretending to be Paul.
Written by Paul
- 1 Corinthians
- 2 Corinthians
- 1 Thessalonians
- Romans
- Philippians
- Galatians
- Philemon (might be a forgery)
Forgeries (claims to be written by Paul, but we know today that isn’t true)
- Ephesians
- Colossians
- 1 Timothy
- 2 Timothy
- Titus
- 2 Thessalonians
Furthermore, other examples of forgeries are the Book of Daniel, Acts is a forged history and the consensus is that both 1 and 2 Peter are forgeries. However, historian Richard Carrier doesn’t agree with the consensus regarding 1 Peter:
…, 1 and 2 Peter are regarded as forgeries. 2 Peter most definitely was not written by the same author as 1 Peter (they are far too divergent stylistically), and therefore we can certainly place 2 Peter with all the other forgeries (in fact, its author certainly knew the Gospels and was therefore not writing independently of them), so we must therefore draw the same conclusions regarding its value as evidence. However, 1 Peter could be authentic, and if so it should be included with the authentic Pauline letters, because it would be of roughly the same date, and by the very man who may have founded the entire Christian religion (having received the first revelation of Jesus Christ that started it all, if we’re to trust 1 Cor. 15.5). Few scholars would agree with this position, but I personally believe it has more merit than is supposed.
Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Revised Edition) (p. 263)
This, of course, is deeply embarrassing for Christian churches and organizations and therefore not something they talk about loudly. How can a Bible that you consider to be “the word of God” or at least inspired by a loving, honest, competent and omniscient God, consist of so many texts that are filled with historical lies?
What does that say about the honesty, omniscience, and omnipotence of your god? How can you, as a Christian, be honest about the texts of your own faith, if your own god isn’t honest about the texts in his own book? If honesty about the biblical texts means that the textual foundation of your faith falls apart?
Every time a pastor or other Christian e.g. preaches on a text in one of the forged letters that claims to be from Paul and attributes the words to Paul, they are lying. Every time they pretend that events in Acts actually happened, they are lying.
See also Bart Ehrman’s list of forgeries in the New Testament.
It is a problem when Christian organizations, in order to support Christianity, continues to spread historical misinformation. This applies here in Denmark, among others, to the Danish Bible Society, which on their website conceals and lies about the historical reality behind the Christian biblical texts.
In addition to the scriptures used in church services, a number of scriptures were also chosen, to which great authority was attributed. This primarily concerns the apostolic letters, that is, the letters written by Paul. This is evident, among other things, from the fact that 13 of the 21 letters found in the New Testament were written by or attributed to Paul.
https://www.bibelselskabet.dk/om-bibelen-menu-tilblivelse/hvorfor-netop-disse-skrifter (archive link) (my translation)
Oddly enough, not a single word about the historical consensus that six out of the thirteen letters are forgeries.
However, this is far from the only thing the Danish Bible Society either conceals or perhaps more directly lies about. For example, about the process to decide which texts were to be included in the New Testament, they write (my translation):
In the case of the New Testament, it happened at a series of church councils in the years 367-397 AD.
https://www.bibelselskabet.dk/om-bibelen-menu-tilblivelse/udvaelgelse-og-oversaettelse (archive link)
That is not historically correct. Historian Richard Carrier, Ph.D., explains it this way:
The first thing to know about NT manuscripts is that, so far, every single one we have is a copy (of a copy of a copy of a copy…) of the same single edition, organized and edited by a single person or focus group, and published between 140 and 170 A.D., in part as a response to an earlier edition (produced by Marcion around 140 A.D.), the first ever known, that has been completely lost (see this excellent article at the Westar Institute for more on that backstory). … The first time any clear assertion of a canon came from Christian leadership was a letter by Athanasias in 367 A.D., and all he did was endorse the canon already widely in use (against attempts to usurp or alter it). But actually, that the canon was decided a century and a half earlier is almost worse. Because it means fewer people, and less discussion, was involved in its selection and preservation.
Richard Carrier, Three Things to Know about New Testament Manuscripts
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11209
So, according to historians, the New Testament we have today was not compiled in the years 367-397 AD, as the Danish Bible Society claims, but rather between 140 and 170 AD. At the time the Danish Bible Society claims it happened, it was already widely in use.
A third example of the many Christian alternative “facts” that Christian churches and organizations thrive on concerns Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. The Danish Bible Society writes the following (my translation):
In the Gospel of Matthew, we read how Jesus – standing on a mountain – delivers an urgent sermon to his listeners. The speech is famous because it contains many of the most well-known and significant statements of Jesus.
https://www.bibelselskabet.dk/bag-om-bjergpraedikenen (archive link)
In the above article, the Danish Bible Society treats the Sermon on the Mount as if it were words coming directly from the mouth of Jesus. Again, there is just one tiny little historical problem which they, funnily enough, doesn’t mention…
… the majority of mainstream experts agree the Sermon on the Mount is a post-war fabrication; it does not record hardly anything Jesus said or that was even circulating about him in the first generation of Christian preaching.
Richard Carrier, Justin Brierley on Jesus
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/19736#mount
Illustrating every point made so far is the Sermon on the Mount, which is a well-crafted literary work that cannot have come from some illiterate Galilean. In fact, we know it originated in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, because it relies on the Septuagint text of the Bible for all its features and allusions. It relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9. These are not the words of Jesus. This famous sermon as a whole also has a complex literary structure that can only have come from a writer, not an everyday speaker. And again, it reflects needs and interests that would have arisen after the apostles began preaching the faith and organizing communities and struggling to keep them in the fold. So it’s unlikely to come from Jesus.
Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Revised Edition) (p. 465-466)
When it comes to the historical reality behind the biblical texts and the stories they contain, the Danish Bible Society and other Christian organizations and churches are simply not trustworthy. They all too often lie about the truth behind the biblical texts, because if they were to stick to the truth, they would have a very hard time arguing for Christianity and the biblical texts as trustworthy, truthful and relevant to live by today.
As historian Richard Carrier puts it in one of his posts:
If Christianity were true, it would not have to be defended with such deceptions, omissions, and lies. That it is so defended, is the number one reason you can be sure it’s false.
Richard Carrier, Five Bogus Reasons to Trust the Bible
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14441
Even the evidence for Jesus as a historical person is profoundly problematic and there are really good reasons to doubt that Jesus has ever existed as a real historical person.
See here, in particular, historian Richard Carrier’s scientific academic peer-reviewed work, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.
(If you read the book, also check Errata for On the Historicity of Jesus, as well as An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus and List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously)
But of course, you won’t get the majority of the Christian churchs to admit that either, because they need a rock-solid certainty that Jesus was a real historical person. The problem for Christians here is that even if Jesus was a real historical person, there is still a very long way from a historical Jesus to a Christian Jesus, who could never have existed in reality.
… most readers do not realize that the translations of the New Testament are based on a composite and hypothetical text, not an actual manuscript. … the problem is that the New Testament is not regarded as just “any ancient writing.” It is regarded as the word of God, and so any admission of reconstruction is an admission that we do not have the word of God as originally intended. As such, a reconstructed text becomes useless when measured against any perceived intended purpose of communicating God’s original word to the masses.
Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (p. 85-86). Kindle Edition.
How does knowing anything about biblical characters or biblical poetic structures help us to become better people or to solve any practical problems in the modern world? That is why the notion that the Bible must be studied for its “intrinsic value” also fails as yet another meaningless and undefinable feature meant only to maintain the privilege of that text.
But let us say that literature is a beneficial part of our human experience, which should be celebrated along with the humanities. The problem is that such a rationale overlooks how the Bible also has been detrimental to human beings. For every page of Hamlet that we might enjoy innocently, there is a passage of the Bible that prompted someone to kill another human being. One can’t say that about Hamlet. The differential in detrimental effect is also a main argument for ending a privileged status for the Bible in any modern canon.
Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (p. 241). Kindle Edition.
First, all religions are systems of lies, designed to keep us trapped and controlled by fear. Liberal, conservative. Doesn’t matter. They can only survive at all, because so many are willing to keep telling and selling the same lies, because so many are so terrified of the truth they’d rather deny it than grow out of it. Even Bart Ehrman points out in Jesus, Interrupted how much the pulpit deliberately keeps from the public out of fear “it will lead to a crisis of faith, or even the loss of faith.” It’s doubtful that can ever be good. But certainly if we believe the truth matters, if we believe growing up and being an adult matters, then we cannot support believing in lies even if they are comforting, and even if the truth must necessarily be disturbing. There is no virtue in willful naivety. There is only danger.
Richard Carrier, What’s the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad
For more background, see my YouTube playlist: Is Christianity true? Is it good?
For example, check out They’re LYING About Morality Coming From GOD, where Dr. Richard Carrier talks about how good morals and ethics didn’t come from Christianity, as many believe, but were something that already existed before Christianity came into play.
And also check out these books:
Richard Carrier, Jesus from Outer Space
Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.
(If you read the book, also check Errata for On the Historicity of Jesus & An Ongoing List of Updates to the Arguments and Evidence in On the Historicity of Jesus.
“Jesus from Outer Space” is the shorter pop version and “On the Historicity of Jesus” is the longer academic peer-reviewed study)
Richard Carrier, The Obsolete Paradigm of a Historical Jesus
Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies
Hector Avalos, The Bad Jesus
Bart D. Ehrman, Forged
Bart D. Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery
(“Forged” is the shorter pop version and “Forgery and Counter-forgery” is the longer academic peer-reviewed study)