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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
anyone wonder how many of the church members there regularly commuted to Jerusalem?
It was called the BS Express…the fastest donkey train in the Middle East.
LikeLike
Ruth, I’m with you.
and several of the Christians on here try to ct like Christians, although not all – but that’s life.
LikeLike
@William – re: Robert De Niro’s “…you talking to me?”
I don’t know if I am or not, without a quotation – that’s the big problem with not stacking – without a quotation, no one really knows who’s talking to whom! If I quoted something you said, then yes – if not, probably not. Is that any clearer? Good, then you can explain it to me!
LikeLike
“…it seems that Pete gave up fishing for men and went back to fishing for fish.”
Yeah, and apparently that was way harder work and possibly less lucrative than having “supporters” pay your way so you can preach.
On an unrelated note: Apparently most, if not all, of these disciples had wives and families. How did they support them? Me thinks Paul would not have approved.
LikeLike
Ya homophobe! 😀
LikeLike
I haven’t read all the comments yet, so maybe this has been addressed:
Mike, this is a good example of the problem. You assume that the event witnessed by 500 people occurred in Jerusalem, but Paul doesn’t say that. We’re given no indication of who these people were, when this happened, or where it occurred. It’s impossible to track down.
I agree that Paul probably wasn’t hinging a great deal on this claim at the time, but it’s a fact that a number of people do today:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm
http://executableoutlines.com/why/why_10.htm
And it’s simply not a good argument.
I started this post months ago, but neglected to paste in the original link. I spent some time yesterday going through my internet history as well as several pages of Google results, but can’t find the original article. I wish I still had it, and I’ve done many similar posts that always link back to the original article. I just can’t find it in this case, but didn’t think that was relevant enough to withhold the post. Sorry if it offends you.
LikeLike
That donkey would need water wings – the Isthmus of Corinth is in the Mediterranean.
LikeLike
i guess it all boils down to who are you gonna believe; god or man? the thing is, everything people claim to know about god comes from some other man – so i guess Christians are all man believers – disciples of man.
When a man claims to speak for god, and then cites 500 nameless individuals, who can argue with that? could it be any clearer? why, it would be a miracle if it werent true, except that miracles prove it’s true, so no matter how you look at this, those guys were spot on. praise god and the man jesus.
maybe that wasnt fair
LikeLike
That’s another issue of contention for me – traditionally, all Jewish men were encouraged to marry early, yet here we have Yeshua, well into his 30’s, running around the countryside with a bunch of men. Hmmmm —
Not – as Seinfeld says – that there’s anything wrong with that —
LikeLike
Yeah, Jesus and the “sons of thunder”…
LikeLike
“That donkey would need water wings – the Isthmus of Corinth is in the Mediterranean.”
for a god that can do anything, it’s easier to explain the problems away, because, well, he can do anything – like make flying donkeys, or make multiple contradictory events not contradictory.
and you know what? i take comfort in that, because he can then condemn people to hell, but then send them to heaven. behold, bachelor jesus, son and father to himself.
LikeLike
I should probably apologize for that one. I’ll stop. It’s juvenile. I just feel someone bitter, at times, over the length at which i was deceived by it. and looking at it now it’s all so obvious.
LikeLike
“Ya homophobe! :D” – yeah, well, my grandson, at 8, won the CD in a contest. After he played that piece, he looked up at me and asked, ‘What does that mean?” – wish I’d had someone like you there to explain it for me.
LikeLike
Just to add on to this thought:
From Bible Hub commentaries:
Pulpit Commentary:
Verse 6. – Above five hundred brethren at once. We cannot be certain whether this memorable appearance took place in Jerusalem or in Galilee. It is, however, most probable that this was the appearance on the mountain (Matthew 28:16, 17; comp. Matthew 26:32).
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:
After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once,…. Not at, or near Jerusalem, for the number of the disciples that were together there, made but about an hundred and twenty, Acts 1:15 but in Galilee, where Christ, in the days of his flesh, had most chiefly conversed, most frequently preached and wrought his miracles, and where the number of his disciples and followers were very large: here he promised his disciples to go before them, and show himself to them after his resurrection, as he accordingly did…
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
6. five hundred—This appearance was probably on the mountain (Tabor, according to tradition), in Galilee, when His most solemn and public appearance, according to His special promise, was vouchsafed (Mt 26:32; 28:7, 10, 16). He “appointed” this place, as one remote from Jerusalem, so that believers might assemble there more freely and securely.
LikeLike
“Yeah, well, my grandson, at 8, won the CD in a contest. After he played that piece, he looked up at me and asked, ‘What does that mean?” – wish I’d had someone like you there to explain it for me.”
Oi! 😕
Well, see…the Mounties are Canadian Police. They always apprehend the appropriate suspects.
LikeLike
“i guess it all boils down to who are you gonna believe; god or man?”
Ah, but which god? There were so MANY —
LikeLike
It went the long way around.
LikeLike
There were so many gods right there in the Bible. The one who couldn’t see Adam and Eve when they were hiding, the one who had to go down to see the Tower of Babel, the one who wrassled Jacob, the one who wiped out the entire population of the Earth except for eight folks, the one who is “love” according to John,…take your pick.
LikeLike
“behold, bachelor jesus, son and father to himself.”
Surely you’ve seen this, William:
Sorry I couldn’t upload it to my comment – WordPress, you know – so I had to break the continuity by making you go to another site, whereas all could have shared it at a simple glance.
LikeLike
LOL – yes, I’ve seen it. funny stuff
LikeLike
“Acts”? As in THE “Acts”? the one that wasn’t even written until well into the next century?
LikeLike
“But what do they do with them after they apprehend them?”
LikeLike
“Acts”? As in THE “Acts”? the one that wasn’t even written until well into the next century?
Presumably so. I know of no other Acts which might be referenced.
LikeLike
“But what do they do with them after they apprehend them?”
They are hauled off in handcuffs. Beyond that I wouldn’t want to venture a guess.
LikeLike
Not my point – which is that the anonymous author of the Acts, writing a hundred years after the fact, if it was a fact, referenced Paul, and is no source of independent corroboration.
LikeLike