I’m writing this post in response to something a fellow blogger has written about why the Bible is trustworthy (though I’ve lost the link to the post). He and I come down on different sides of this issue, and I thought the best way to tackle this would be to respond to each of his points in order.
1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.
Yes, we should, but this means different things to different people. When we read ancient historical texts, what do we think about the supernatural events that they relate? Many ancient historians talk about miracles, or attribute certain events to various gods — do we accept those claims? Of course not. We accept the events, like wars, famines, political upheavals, but we chalk up the supernatural claims to superstition.
However, when Christians ask that we treat the Bible the way we would treat other historical sources, they don’t mean it in the way I just described. They’ll say, “if you believe the histories about George Washington, why do you reject the stories of the Bible?” But this isn’t a true comparison. If we had an historical account that claimed George Washington could fly, we would dismiss it, even if everything else it recounted was factual.
There’s another difference as well. What we believe about George Washington has no real impact on the rest of our lives. However, most versions of Christianity say that if we don’t believe Jesus was the actual son of God, we’ll face eternal consequences. What could be more important than making sure we hold the correct view? So if God loves us and wants us all to believe, doesn’t it make sense that the “extraordinary claims” of the Bible would have “extraordinary evidence”? That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.
2) Witnesses for the Bible.
It’s often mentioned that the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by 40+ authors. That timeline is not accepted by all scholars, but even if it were, this has nothing to do with whether or not it is accurate or inspired. In order for later authors to write things that fit with what came before, they only need to be familiar with those earlier writings. In other words, the Bible is much like fan fiction.
Paul says that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his resurrection, so some Christians point to that as evidence too. But who were these 500 people? Where did they see the risen Jesus? Was it all at once, was it 500 separate appearances, or was it something in between? This claim is so vague, there’s no way it could be contested. Even if a critic could have rounded up a multitude of people who all claimed to not have seen Jesus post-resurrection, Paul would only have to say, “It was 500 other people.” No, Paul’s 500 witnesses are completely useless. Instead of actually being 500 separate witnesses for the risen Jesus, this is just one claim — Paul’s. Plus, let’s not forget that Paul is telling this to fellow Christians, not skeptics. No one in his audience would be inclined to call foul anyway.
Sometimes it’s pointed out that the earliest critics of Christianity did not question Jesus’ existence or his miracles, but just claimed that he was one of many people who claimed similar things. But I don’t think we should really expect ancient critics to focus on his existence or miracles anyway. How do you prove that someone didn’t exist? And aside from Christian writings, we have no sources about Jesus anyway, so how could they disprove either his existence or his miracles? And these critics lived in a time in which the existence of miracles were almost universally accepted. So arguing from this point doesn’t seem very convincing to me.
When it comes to historical sources for Jesus, it’s true that Josephus probably mentions him. And there are a couple of other references by other historians within the first 100 years or so after his death. But these references tell us nothing about Jesus other than that he might have existed, and that there were people at that time who were Christians. These points are virtually uncontested — and they say nothing about who Jesus really was. It’s hard to count them as any kind of evidence in Jesus’ favor.
3) Archaeology
Christians will often cite the Bible’s agreement with archaeology as one reason to believe it may be divinely inspired. For instance, most historians used to believe that the Hittites never existed, since the only record of them came from the Old Testament. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, evidence finally came to light that overturned that opinion, exonerating the Bible.
But does this agreement with archaeology really indicate that the Bible was divinely inspired? Many books have been written that seem to record accurate history — does this mean we should assume those authors were inspired by God? Of course not. While agreement with archaeology is a good sign, it’s not necessarily a reason to leap to the conclusion that God had anything to do with writing the Bible.
The story doesn’t end here, though. As it turns out, archaeology does not always agree with the Bible. The Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, for instance, has no archaeological evidence. While that is an example of missing evidence, we also have examples of contradictory evidence: archaeology indicates that Joshua’s conquest of Canaan did not actually happen, the kingdoms of David and Solomon appear to be far smaller than the Bible depicts, and the Book of Daniel contains several anachronisms, including its incorrect labeling of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son.
Examples like these show that the Bible’s agreement with archaeology is not nearly as strong as some would claim, making it very shaky grounds for staking the claim of inspiration.
In the next post, we’ll talk about other reasons that people give: prophecy and internal consistency.
Finding Truth 
At this point this post has devolved..</i.
It did so at a rapid rate.
Thanks, Howie. I really didn't apologize to Nate to get sympathy. It just seemed as if I was contributing to the downhill slide. Mike made it perfectly clear in a reply he made that he wasn't here for constructive conversation. Quite the contrary. He absolutely intends to be deconstructive. Forcefully so.
It's just not typically my nature to gloat when someone else makes a mistake, especially when they own up to it. I don't get that. But hen Mike also made it perfectly clear that since I am an unbeliever, particularly a former believer, he is well within his rights to do so. I'm beginning, since this isn't the first time I've run up against this type of thinking, to believe it must be in the official apologist handbook. "Bomb them with insults, veiled threats, and rudeness." Maybe since the love bombs didn't take? *shrug*
Good luck with that puppy. When we adopted, fortunately, we got a dog that had already been housebroken. 🙂
LikeLike
Gahhhh! I hate it when I forget to close the html!
LikeLike
I know the feeling – it’s easy to forget to close the html (or even to just forget the ‘/’ character which I forget sometimes).
Thanks for the good wishes on the puppy – I’ve never owned anything more than fish so this will be a real experience. My wife is doing tons of legwork on research so we may at least have some small shot at it working out ok.
LikeLike
I really have no idea why everyone has allowed someone like Mike Anthony ‘sucker punch’ them into playing his game.
Nate’s subtle assessment was eloquent and the perfect epithet for him. Notably that he is a master debater.
Yes, indeed he is. And if it makes him go blind perhaps his god will restore his sight?
LikeLike
ark, once again, is the voice of reason. I’m glad you’re here. I realize that this may sound sarcastic, but i am being serious.
LikeLike
I’ve been following this discussion since the beginning, and I wish I had the time and energy to go back over every post and point out the hostility expressed by Mike Anthony. Even though he thinks the people visiting this blog are the culprits, I think most casual visitors would think the opposite.
Not only does he make outright claims about people he doesn’t even know (“You all are totally hostile to Christianity”), but he also makes innumerable assumptions about their beliefs (“you atheists”). Further, in one of his latest postings, he claims they are operating under “rather deep delusions.”
While it’s obvious he enjoys debating his beliefs (otherwise why would he stick around so long), it’s unfortunate he doesn’t see that his comments come across as often ill-mannered and condescending.
I’m sure he’ll assail me next for what I have just written as it seems totally necessary for him to defend himself by rebutting others. No matter. I stand by my comments.
In the meantime, I do hope this discussion can get back on track. Nate has always been open to both believers and non-believers offering their insights — and when this is done in an calm and reasoned manner, everyone benefits.
LikeLike
@William.
No problems.
Some people need to be politely, but firmly shown the door. Anthony is one such.
LikeLike
@portal001:
Ryan, I hope I didn’t speak wrong about you in my other comment – given some of your comments a few months ago it seemed you were saying you were a Christian. Would you still say that?
You said:
I’m glad you said this because I am not one of those trying to destroy Christendom. I think in some of the conversations you and I had on my blog a while back (do you remember those?) I encouraged you to do research from all different viewpoints to get a better understanding of what is true. That is my main goal out here. I want to share my own beliefs about what I think is correct and I have several times admitted that I could be wrong about those things. I gave the same kind of no pressure encouragement to find what is true to Ratamacue on his blog a few months ago. If Christianity is true then I definitely want to know that – and the same goes for other religions (and I’m in no way saying I don’t have biases). I see no problem with Christians like you, Unklee, Captain Catholic, and Josh. From my perspective you guys make this a better world to live in. I’ve said before, I sometimes attend Unitarian Universalist services where many people believe in a Christian God (more liberal version of course), and I don’t see any need to destroy that – kindness is their main goal and I think the world is actually better with those congregations. My only caveats are that this hell belief and some beliefs in more fundamentalist/cultish religions (whether it be not going to doctors, or justifying genocide or slavery which Mike came a little close to 2 posts ago) are things that look to me like they make our world a worse place, and those things I do think the world will be better without.
LikeLike
Hey Nate, call me weird, but maybe I’ll be the only Christian to actually like this post.
I agree with the point about the 500. Chalking this part of the pre-Pauline creed up to fabrication is one way to suggest that the resurrection was actually a series of complex audiovisual hallucinations maybe topped off with some charisma. Although, if these hallucinations were sufficiently similar and independent (i.e. Peter and Paul), this would be very improbable and start to approach impossible with our understanding of reality. . .
A few things I would criticize are: 1) There are extrabiblical sources for Jesus. In fact, I think I heard there are as many sources, biblical and extrabiblical combined, attesting the crucifixion as there are for the existence of Roman emperor, Tiberius. And, Paul offhandedly mentions that he met with James, Jesus’ biological brother, in Galatians. Clues like this point make virtually all serious scholars believe in Jesus’ existence as a historical figure. A historical Jesus existed with historical certainty for the type of evidence produced in the first century. Agnostic/atheist, Bart Ehrman, even wrote a whole book on the subject because he saw the Jesus “mythers” as a sub-academic internet phenomenon which frankly appears to be wishful in their anti-Christian sentiment.
And, 2) I would word your archaeological statement like this: “We have not discovered any specific evidence for the exodus” rather than an overreaching “There is no evidence for the exodus.” I know this seems kind of petty (and I can feel the heat that will come already for saying this). But, wording is important because it clarifies our state of knowledge which cannot conclusively rule out the historicity of this event. And, I have not heard of or seen any evidence that archaeology contradicts the conquest narrative, certainly not any argument that reaches any persuasive level, and I have literally begged people for this evidence. What it comes down to is making a claim like this requires a high burden of proof, it should not be accepted on academic dogma.
-B
LikeLike
” And, I have not heard of or seen any evidence that archaeology contradicts the conquest narrative, certainly not any argument that reaches any persuasive level, and I have literally begged people for this evidence.”
Here is something you might find interesting.
http://christianthinktank.com/noai.html
LikeLike
@anaivethinker
Thanks for chiming in — I always appreciate your perspective.
You make a great point about the historical Jesus, and I agree. I tend to think he was a real person, though I’m not by any means an expert. My only real point was that even our extra-biblical sources are only repeating things that the gospels also record. In other words, they’re simply echoing what Jesus’ followers were saying at the time and don’t seem to have any independent sources for their information. While this is good evidence that Christians lived at these times, it still doesn’t seem to confirm much about their beliefs. At least to me…
That’s a fair point.
kcchief’s link seems to list several of the things I was going to mention. As I understand it, the current archaeological consensus is that many of the sites talked about in Joshua’s conquest do not show signs of destruction at the time the conquest was supposed to take place. Some of the cities seem to have been long abandoned, for instance. I’ll dig into this a bit more and see if I run across anything else significant.
Thanks again 🙂
LikeLike
@ Naivethinker.
Lol….Josephus? Tacitus?
You need to study a bit more history, Brandon and be a tad more circumspect.
Really? You’ve been reading too much apologetic’s again, Brandon, you naughty boy, to be making such sweeping categorical statements as Jesus biological brother, and you are revealing your insufferable indoctrination once again.
This is the correct phrasing. There is NO evidence, and there is no way anyone with any sense will kow tow to a little snot nose halfwit like you over every recognised archaeologists, historian, Egyptologist and practically every Rabbi.
This is recognised as accepted as fact and you are simply behaving like an arse by even suggesting it may have happened.
And for your comment you receive the 2nd Dickhead of the day award. Congratulations!
LikeLike
aw, ark, this dude was being cool. Let’s not “mike anthony” the guy, but engage him in polite discussion as long as he is up for it.
LikeLike
“Hey Nate, call me weird, but maybe I’ll be the only Christian to actually like this post.
I agree with the point about the 500. ”
this Christian would not have minded it if it were a bit more forthcoming. It reads as if the mystery blogger or apologists used the 500 by itself and leaves out entirely that almost no apologist uses the 500 that way and it entirely ignores the surrounding context identifying 13 people rather than none. The very links nate provided show no such argument either limited to the 500 either . Its somewhat of a strawman.
““There is no evidence for the exodus.” I know this seems kind of petty (and I can feel the heat that will come already for saying this).”
actually its not petty at all. unbeknownst to many, archaeology is ever changing and even the chronology that is presently being used has issues being pieced together from inscriptions. An excellent book on this is located here
Which indicates we may well be off by hundreds of years in our dating. Jericho has swung back and forth as supporting and not supporting the Bible account depending on those chronologies. Skeptics have a looooooong history of making such claims based on present archaeology only to have to withdraw them. Hittites were claimed to be fictional, daniel was accused of making up characters that oops were later found to be real on and on – even Some very recently being debunked. In the 1990s you would have heard the kingdom of David was entirely mythical but oops then there was this
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/
SO now it has shifted to “it wasn’t big enough”
Mind you I wouldn’t say you base your idea of inspiration of the Bible solely on Archaeological agreement either but then again I don’t know anyone that does. it just does have a pretty good record over time of proving alleged myths of places and people made by skeptics as wrong.
LikeLike
“This is the correct phrasing. There is NO evidence, and there is no way anyone with any sense will kow tow to a little snot nose halfwit like you over every recognised archaeologists, historian, Egyptologist and practically every Rabbi.”
ROFL…give this man a beer.
Down the toilet goes the narrative that all the merry band does is respond in kind. You just have to disagree with them as I have in a few threads and they go off.
Yep umm THE place for unbiased exchange of ideas 🙂 🙂
Wrong again too, Not every egyptologist does. Once in awhile you guys should do some research beyond wikipedia.
though I haven’t been reading ARK I am glad I saw that – Hilarious. Ark just debunked all of you.
LikeLike
archaeology just hasn’t found any evidence yet… science just hasnt proven it yet…
I’m down with both of those. seems reasonable, but until something is verified soundly, it’s in the air. And if the dates for Jericho are constantly going back and forth, it’s not just the skeptics have to withdrawal their claims.
This is interesting stuff though. When I was a believer, the absence of evidence didnt bother me, the presence of conflicting evidence I dismissed for various reasons, although I typically hung to what supporting evidence there was.
now that method seems unfair to me.
how do you see all in total, mike – or any believer? honestly. Does evidence matter or is it just what the bible says only?
LikeLike
Ark, I gotta agree with William here. These OT issues are so far in the past it’s hard to consider any of them a slam dunk for either side. I think it’s suspect that there’s (so far) no evidence for the Exodus, considering how many people supposedly made the trek, but I would be uncomfortable claiming that it proves the Exodus couldn’t have happened.
And Brandon’s a good guy… let’s not bust his chops. 🙂
Mike, which characters in Daniel were you referring to?
LikeLike
Oh, and Ruth, I’ve enjoyed all your comments 🙂
LikeLike
“In the 1990s you would have heard the kingdom of David was entirely mythical but oops then there was this…”
I at least feel like these are solid points. what gives me pause to accept them as evidence for the divine are similar things like King Arthur, the city of Troy, etc. all once thought to be fables, but later found to be true – or at least based on truth – yet these do not make us think Homer was a prophet.
but yes, the bible seems to have at least some historical credibility, like many books, and also seems to have some historic problems, like other books as well.
it is a good point, but why should the bible be exalted above others?
LikeLike
“And less anyone barf like the Arks and arch who I pretty much skip over when reading comments.</em"
At least we now know who he's most afraid of.
LikeLike
“And Brandon’s a good guy… let’s not bust his chops. 🙂”
Believe that if you like, Nate, but I’ve gotten to know him rather well, both on Neuro’s and his own blog, and I find him to be a smarmy sleezebag.
LikeLike
Holy crap! Has he been at this all day? And in the process, has he said ANYthing of substance? I thought not —
Why is anyone wasting their time with him?
LikeLike
I’ve never known anyone to talk so much and say so little.
LikeLike
@Arch – I’ve had several discussions with Brandon spread out at different places and although we’ve disagreed with each other a lot he has never once thrown an insult my way (and if any were underhanded I don’t care because they went right past me). I’ve been able to have conversations that I thought were useful. So at least right now I don’t really care if he has ulterior motives or not – I don’t see a reason to bust his chops either.
LikeLike