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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
“engage him in polite discussion as long as he is up for it.”
You don’t know him, William – I can just here his mind going, “Welcome to my parlor….”
Talk to Neuronotes for a full diagnosis.
LikeLike
“he has never once thrown an insult my way”
No, and he won’t either – he firmly believes that a spoonful of saccharin helps the medicine go down.
LikeLike
@anaivethinker: Hey Brandon. I also believe that Jesus was very likely a historical figure. There’s a few reasons I have for that although I’ll admit it’s mostly a gut feel because as a layperson I’m not a fan of going against scholarly consensus (especially when it may be 99+%). I’ll also say that I don’t agree that mythicism is only a sub-academic internet phenomenon, and I have reasons for that, but it isn’t a point worth arguing to me because of my previous sentence. Even though Carrier is coming out with his book this month or next my gut feel is that it won’t convince many scholars. I could obviously be wrong, but that’s my guess. I do think however that there is not enough scholarly consensus about Jesus to really know a whole lot of important things that we would want to know – opinions seem to span the map on what he said and did. Do we really know how much embellishment there was in the gospels? I don’t see how that’s something we could have certain opinions on outside of a faith statement.
I’d like to know more about the archeology stuff, but haven’t researched it enough. Actually some interesting questions arise from that. If I stuck with consensus as I did in the last paragraph then I should say I believe it’s very likely the exodus did not happen. This as in the last paragraph could be corrected with new information or better analysis as well. But actually in this case I’m not sure we have a % consensus number, which is why I would claim agnosticism due to ignorance. But this actually brings up another question – should those who have made an oath to their church or whatever organization that commits to inerrancy even be considered in a calculation of consensus? I don’t believe so, and while you could say there are analogous atheists, I would say that I would be doubtful any are making oaths that say that they must believe the exodus never happened, and if they are then they should be taken out of the polling as well. More crap to make all this stuff even more elusive for us.
LikeLike
@kcchief1, thanks for the link. I read the abstract and briefly scanned it, and I had already known about all these findings. So, the problem is the assumptions behind the alleged contradictions. Many of them depend on specific biblical chronologies and many of them depend on archeological “surveys” which amounts to digging up Tells to the ground level. What about the millions of square kilometers surrounding the Tells? In order to confidently claim a contradiction, you have to meet a very high burden of proof. Also, there could be some literary devices employed as in the Gospels such as time telescoping. Again, the point is that there is an extraordinary burden of proof to show an absolute contradiction just as there is for proving, say, a miracle.
@Nate, thanks for your response. I would agree with you that the extrabiblical sources could have all depended on echoing. And, this kind of problem is not unique to Jesus, it remains a difficult historical problem!
@Howie, I agree with you that it’s hard to know much about Jesus, if anything. Most people will say the most secure data point we have is Jesus’ crucifixion. From there it will depend on methodology, so one can “construct” whatever Jesus one desires. And, I say “construct” as opposed to “reconstruct” because I think history is lost and we can never actually reconstruct what happened. There seems to be scholars who are on board with finding reasonable approaches to historicity, then we get points like Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist being another very likely true data point. Then there seems to be scholars who just don’t care about academic trends, they erase the drawing board and approach it from another angle such as NT Wright. Also, there has been a recent scholarly breakthrough in the Gospels by Richard Bauckham arguing that there is internal evidence that the Gospels are based on eyewitness tradition rather than oral tradition. This would make it much more likely that they are not embellished. But, again one would have to be convinced by these arguments and methodologies. I guess the faith statement would have to be faith in methodologies. 🙂
I agree with you on oaths! I guess I could give you my 10 cent spiel on OT and archaeology. My main problem is use of invalidated arguments from silence. Medical labs go through extensive validation processes to be certified to “rule out” certain diseases (which is a validated argument from silence), but in archaeology they only dig up a small percentage of Tels and do not scratch the millions of square kilometers of surrounding land (which may be the better place to look for evidence of nomadic tent-dwelling peoples), then they say their overturning a few grains of earth is sufficient to prove that Israel was not there. And, Egypt has no known ancient records of Israelite slaves, but one needs to prove that Egypt would have both made and kept these records, that the records would have survived over time, in order to claim that Israelite slaves did not exist.
LikeLike
“IF you wish to appeal to scripture then show me where any christian is commanded to only have soft gentle answers and not point out glaring weaknesses in your points.” ~Mike Anthony
1 Peter 3:15
“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect“
LikeLike
EXcellent, Ron!
LikeLike
@anaivethinker: I understand what you are saying about the argument from silence, and I’m not enough of a scholar to measure whether or not the argument from silence is validated enough in this case to give us a correct measure. However, I don’t see how the bar here for belief should be the bar set in medical labs. The bar should be the exact same bar that is used for all other arguments from silence on historical claims of that timeframe. I’d have to be a scholar or read well enough of the scholars to say whether or not this case meets that bar, and I’m not, but I’m just offering my thoughts on what the process should be for us to make an assessment. I think what you may be saying which I agree is that the certainty level we can have of these kind of historical claims of that time are of a lower level than medical lab claims. That’s just the nature of the beast, but it doesn’t mean people studying the issue shouldn’t put some level of likelihood on the claim relative to other similar claims. If a very large percentage of scholars are in agreement, which some have claimed for this, then perhaps this bar has properly been met. Would you say that expressing skepticism about the veracity of the exodus story is warranted, or would you even say that is wrong? Complete certainty can’t be claimed for any of these things (even medical labs have mistakes that fall through).
LikeLike
@Howie: I’m also not a scholar on this issue, right there with you! 🙂 But, my little digging into the issue has unearthed some problems. For example, (and I am pulling this from memory) the Israelites were supposed to have camped at Kadesh-Barnea for a year before the Conquest. At Kadesh-Barnea is a Tel (a mound of dirt with archaeological remains of fortresses, cities, and so on) that has been dug to ground level and showed no evidence of occupation at any plausible time frames before the alleged Conquest. In fact, the site seems to have been first occupied in monarchical times. So, I’ve heard people claim there is no evidence of Israelites at Kadesh-Barnea. But, what they’ve failed to consider is that Israelites probably lived in tents, not making a fortress here, and might have left little behind in terms of what would be expected to survive and whatever the ancient site called Kadesh-Barnea may be near this modern area, but not specifically excavated as of yet. There must be tens, perhaps hundreds of square kilometers of places to dig. My point here, is that in order to confidently say, “The ancient Israelites did not come through here” you need to cover more territory than merely one Tel. That’s why it is an invalidated argument from silence.
As for the scholars, I respect them and don’t think they are being disingenuous. There have been believer converted skeptic looking at this data such as William G Dever. Unfortunately, I just do not think that consensus has that tight of a relationship to sound methodology. There are all kinds of academic and social pressures that can modify where the bar is and who will just go with the flow, the dogma of the day. This is certainly not limited to archaeology as I have seen in my science career an example of an experiment that was given a biased interpretation that became dogmatic. There are literally science grants awarded based on this dogma! The good thing about science including archaeology is that eventually I think it will self correct, but we may have to wait for a new generation that does not have a reputation or funding at stake.
LikeLike
<>.
So, you have never read Josephus? Not even the arabic translation? Or Tacitus?
But please tell me – How could 1 poor carpenter and his 12 student change the world and put their mark on it? And this carpenter was active only 3,5 years? And every one of his students, except one, was executed?
That is a true miracle.
LikeLike
And aside from Christian writings, we have no sources about Jesus anyway, so how could they disprove either his existence or his miracles?
So, you have never read Josephus? Not even the arabic translation? Or Tacitus?
LikeLike
@Mike Anthony.
Really? So you can find a recognised Egyptologist that actually believes the Exodus took place as per biblical specs?
Let’s see what you got, hotshot. I am bursting with excitement!
@Nate.
Brandon is an infantile convert of the worst kind – as Arch said , a sleazebag. If you don’t believe me, you can trust Arch.
LikeLike
Oh, and Mike? If you haven’t got anyone besides that evangelical sunbeam-for-Jesus , Kenneth Kitchen , don’t waste anyone’s time bothering to reply.
LikeLike
““But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect“
NIce try Ron but did you even bother to read the part you didn’t bold? nope just quote mining the BIble as you guys always do. This blog and its commenters are not asking anything they are claiming day after day week after week that that the reasons are bogus, that christians are deluded and that our brothers in Christ are liars while trying to convince others to give up their faith under the assumption that you were Christians and you saw the light. When there have been reasonable answers given to many of your claims all the times I have seen the point has never been conceded the goal posts were just moved my favorite one being something to the effect of “well didn’t know that but I still say” and “that might be the case but it should be clearer to me so its still an issue”. What you should realize is that people read a blog a bit before responding. I read Many of nate’s articles and your comments before every responding. You already had indicated you were really looking for no answers before I ever responded to anything.
Now if you were not enemies of the cross (totally different from just not believing)and really asking then yes I would deal differently with you but you are and are just kidding yourselves. SO do I curse you and call you assholes and Dickheads like your comrades do to believers? No I tell you when you are fooling yourselves, where you have not done the research, When you are being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. 9 times out of 10 you call telling you the truth rude.
Incidentally gentle in that verse by the NIV is dubious. the word there should be meekness a very misunderstood word in the 21st century
Meanwhile you missed a few passages
Acts 8:21-23 (KJV)
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Matthew 23:13 (KJV)
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
None of which you would consider gentle and you would no doubt label rude for just telling the truth. So tell me if you are such seekers of the truth and looking for the reasons of the hope then why two days after claiming there was no answer to the resurrection contradiction and receiving one has no one touched on it or followed up one way or the other?
Simple. Its not your real priority. You hang on to even Nate’s most sketchy posts because you are not really looking to find the truth but swear you already have it. I’ve read you guys enough to tell you what is obvious to anyone who has. You come to this blog for confirmation of your bias not to ask for any answer of the hope.
LikeLike
“Really? So you can find a recognised Egyptologist that actually believes the Exodus took place as per biblical specs?
Let’s see what you got, hotshot. I am bursting with excitement!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29
THE END. 🙂
“Oh, and Mike? If you haven’t got anyone besides that evangelical sunbeam-for-Jesus , Kenneth Kitchen , don’t waste anyone’s time bothering to reply.”
Ah moving the goal posts in anticipation of being proven wrong eh? Now its not recognized egyptologist but a non christian egyptologist.
But umm isn’t that circular? If an egyptologist found good reason to believe the Bible then he would tend to more likely be Christian.
oh never mind that that just spoils the rhetoric. Carry on but anyway nope still wrong not Ken.
P.S. this blog doesn’t have an ignore function so yes occassionally I do read something you write.
LikeLike
“But please tell me – How could 1 poor carpenter and his 12 student change the world and put their mark on it? And this carpenter was active only 3,5 years? And every one of his students, except one, was executed?
That is a true miracle.”
Shek,
Most skeptics come up with fanciful tales of how tens of thousands of people were deluded some even going to the extreme of claiming mass hallucinations to a degree and detail nowhere else known. that something significant happened around that time is so clear that only the most desperate skeptic holds to no historical Jesus.
So what do we have according to the skeptics? well the world’s most successful hoax that has people the world over looking to a Jewish man just as Isaiah 11 prophecies who just happens to have lived in the time period specified by Daniel 9 vision prophecying his arrival.
Really great “coincidental” timing eh?.
LikeLike
“New Chronology is an alternative Chronology of the ancient Near East developed by English Egyptologist David Rohl and other researchers[1][2] beginning with A Test of Time: The Bible – from Myth to History in 1995. It contradicts mainstream Egyptology by proposing a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, in particular by redating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, lowering conventional dates up to 350 years.”
Mike, is this what you meant by “Moving the Goal Posts” ???
LikeLike
@Mike.
RFLMAO Rohl Are you chuffing serious?
Oh, dear oh dear and this after you berate those on this blog for using Wiki.
That’s it…you are officially a plonker.
Mike, you are truly piddling in the wind my friend. Even Albright had more credibility than you.
You need to take your underpants off of your head and ask your pharmacist for your new prescription.
LikeLike
“So what do we have according to the skeptics? well the world’s most successful hoax that has people the world over looking to a Jewish man just as Isaiah 11 prophecies who just happens to have lived in the time period specified by Daniel 9 vision prophesying his arrival.
Really great “coincidental” timing eh?”
Mike/Shek,
a wonderful miracle indeed. The longevity of this religion, coupled with its unlikely beginnings can only mean god’s hand was behind it. That’s one reason we can all be sure that Muhammad is god’s prophet… and Buddha should be revered – or any of the religions that predate christianity or judaism.
of course, christianity could have been just one of many religions until Constantine converted and flew the cross as he battled to secure his empire, and made the official religion of rome after victory. Constantine, the one who basically started the catholic church, the church that most “christian” today broke away from years ago. the same catholic church that canonized scripture, picking and choosing what to accept and what to discard.
Wondrous miracle, or complicated and interesting fluke?
maybe we can all decide on our own without calling other opinions stupid or malicious.
LikeLike
““engage him in polite discussion as long as he is up for it.”
You don’t know him, William – I can just here his mind going, “Welcome to my parlor….”
Talk to Neuronotes for a full diagnosis.”
LOL, Arch. very well. If you two have a history, i wont get in your way. he and i dont have one yet, so i’ll remain polite as long as he does.
LikeLike
@Shek1na
In Bart Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman (pp, 59-60) provides a translation of the TF from “the best manuscript of Josephus”:
If that passage in its entirety doesn’t sound like a breathless Christian advertisement, I don’t know what does! In any event, since historicizers – believers and evemerists alike – become so hung up on this passage, arguing that it proves Jesus’s existence, we need to address this issue continually.
After citing the passage, Ehrman (p. 60) says:
Ehrman goes on to explain, “When Christian scribes copied the text, they added a few words here and there to make sure that the reader would get the point. This is that Jesus, the superhuman messiah raised from the dead as the scriptures predicted.”
Bullsh*t is bullsh*t, whether it’s in Arabic, English, or Greek.
LikeLike
I would have preferred to have included an image of the turbaned Josephus in that last comment, but WordPress the Wonderful doesn’t allow me to do that.
LikeLike
and with josephus, even if those were his unmolested words, so what? he never met or saw jesus himself. Jesus was dead when josephus was around, so anything that josephus would have thought was mere hearsay.
i’m just not sure josephus means anything credible any way you look at it.
again, for the believer, it doesnt mean anything either, because the believer already believes in jesus, so if josephus said that jesus was a fake, would the believer cease to believe? no, they’d just toss josephus aside because “he didnt have a good and honest heart” and besides, he didnt live during that time anyways.
LikeLike
RE: “Brandon is an infantile convert of the worst kind – as Arch said , a sleazebag. If you don’t believe me, you can trust Arch.”
And if the Arkster has something good to say about me, you have to KNOW it must be true!
Brandon came on Violetwisp’s site like gangbusters, but one by one, his responders tired of his smarmy attitude, his basing his belief on “feelings,” and fell away from responding to him. He finally got the message and crying, “Why do you hate me?” decided to take his polemic elsewhere, and after being banned from Neuro’s site, slunk home to his own, where he has been holding forth with only William and Howie as playmates, but now, it would seem, he’s found a new playground.
He appears to have had instruction in the art of smarm – the last time I mentioned this, he quit for a while (and likely will again, now), to prove me wrong, but soon returned to the formula, as it is firmly ensconced in his repertoire – he begins his comment by complimenting his opponent’s comment (designed to lower his opponent’s guard and ingratiate himself), before adding the word, BUT —
Even his avatar is calculated – the down-shot makes him appear smaller, and the glasses appear to enlarge his eyes. We humans are hardwired – a species-survival necessity – to experience a subconscious urge to feel protective of, or at least disarmed by, small, wide-eyed children. The beard, of course, is in emulation of his hero, the zombie. Should I have capitalized “zombie”?
LikeLike
The ”funny” thing with Josephus is his dad would have been around when the god-man Yeshua was dazzling the crowds in Galilee and environs – lived up the road apparently – and yet, not a peep to his kid. And grown up Josephus mentions nothing that his dad might have heard, alluded to or seen?
If one is prepare to look at the whole picture and include a soupcon of common sense, all JC references by Josephus smack of Christian interpolation.
Look at this way. Where and when did you learn about Santa Claus? From your folks as a kid or from a bunch of strangers once you were all grown up?
LikeLike
Mike: “IF you wish to appeal to scripture then show me where any christian is commanded to only have soft gentle answers and not point out glaring weaknesses in your points.” ~Mike Anthony
Ron: Sure, here’s a verse.
Mike: Well, you got me there—but rather than concede you’ve answered my question and humble myself, I’ll generate a long list of excuses for why that verse doesn’t apply to me.
BTW, meek and gentle are synonyms.
praÿtēs (Strong’s G4240) mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit, meekness
LikeLike