There are several avenues that may be explored with this question. One may examine, for example, the bibliographical data (i.e., how the documents came down to us in history). Such an examination shows that, in terms of ancient works, the Bible stands in a class all its own. But, for our purposes here, we will break it down into internal and external criteria for judging whether or not any ancient work is reliable. In doing this, we are not just applying a special class of questions to the Bible that cannot be applied to other works. Rather, we are asking the same types of questions that might be asked when examining the reliability of any ancient document. (Note: These questions are suggested by Gregory Boyd in Letters From a Skeptic: Victor Books, 1994, pp. 80-86.)

1. Was the writer in a position to know what he is talking about? Does the text claim to be based on eyewitness accounts?

The biblical writers were involved in the events about which they wrote. They often appealed to eyewitnesses in order to point to the reliability of what was being said (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-8; 2 Pet. 1:16; Jn. 1:1-3, etc.). They were in a far better position to know what they were talking about than the modern critics.

2. Does the document in question contain specific, and apparently irrelevant, material?

Firsthand sources often contain details that are not central to the story; false accounts are more often generalized. This is not to say that the Bible has irrelevant material. However, there are some details in scripture that, on first reading, appear unnecessary. For example, in reading John 20:1-8, one might wonder whether it matters if it was early or late, dark or light. Does it matter that Peter went into the tomb first? or that the burial cloth was folded? These things may be significant; but from an historical viewpoint, why put material like this in unless it happened just as it says? Such details serve to boost historical reliability.

3. Does the document contain self-damaging material?

If "heroes" in a story look "bad," or if the material presented seems to weaken the story, then it strengthens the case for truth serving as the motivation of the writer. In fact, the Bible does contain this type of material. One of the clearest examples of this is in the Gospel accounts in which women are first to discover the empty tomb and report the resurrection. It is an historical fact that women could not testify in courts of law at that time, as they were considered tale-bearers. If a writer fabricated an account and tried to present it as true during that time, it would have been self-defeating to have women be the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They probably would not even be part of the account. But there they are! What accounts for this? It happened just that way! In this case, the inclusion of women strengthens the case for historical reality. Add to this the disciples, such as Peter, that are often portrayed in a bad light. Their faults are not hidden.

4. Is the document reasonably self-consistent?

Do the accounts make sense? Some inconsistencies are expected in typical historical documents, but this does not normally cause problems. In the Bible, we find a self-consistent theme (even though written over a 1600 year period, from men of differing backgrounds, languages, times, etc.). The Gospel accounts present a consistent portrait of Jesus. There are differences, but these do not equal contradictions (i.e., the "synoptic problem"). The differences do not change the relative consistency of the accounts.

5. Is there evidence of addition and exaggeration?

"Fish stories" become more exaggerated over time. Critics sometimes claim that the Bible has this kind of material (e.g., that later disciples added the idea that Jesus is God). However, as literature expert C.S. Lewis put it: "As a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of things" (God in the Dock). The evidence for exaggeration is not there.

Internally, the Bible passes the tests for reliability. For those who want to dig in further, there is plenty of material available on this topic. I urge everyone to keep studying.