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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
Handcuffs, eh? How kinky!
LikeLike
Oh, I got your point.
These commentaries are rather old, but I think a good many theologians still use them and reference them. Fundamentalists, especially, don’t buy into modern historical and archaeological evidence that suggests later dates of authorship.
It’s more along the lines of…”anything that contradicts the Bible cannot be true” vein, and a line of thinking that our friend likely also subscribes to. The Bible, itself, is enough commentary on the Bible. Scripture should only be interpreted using scripture. Sola Scriptura. Or, in the case of Catholicism, whatever the priests say that scripture means according to tradition…or not.
LikeLike
This is not something I’d say to an eight year old….
LikeLike
@ Mike Anthony
You are a Dickhead. I honestly think that’s the most relevant comment you deserve.
Consider yourself fortunate in this regard.
LikeLike
I love that brand – don’t see it around too much anymore, but quality material at reasonable prices… and oh… that was an “i” and not a “u.”
well never mind.
LikeLike
Now that I stirred the pot by calling Mike’s comments silly, what exactly were we discussing ? 🙂
LikeLike
I wasn’t attacking Mike, only trying to make light of his statements. He had already began attacking people personally rather than defending his comments. When this starts so early on, you know the lack of civility is only going to get worse.
Mike’s best game was his personal attacks. That’s all he has. He knows it. We all know it.
Most of us understand why people like Mike resort to this. As Christian de-converts most of us know what it is like trying to defend the indefensible.
LikeLike
Just ran across this in an email I got from Freethought Nation, in case any Americans here are interested:
LikeLike
Very interesting, Arch
The face of things yet to come ….
LikeLike
Poco a poco —
LikeLike
You can bet they’re not Republicans!
LikeLike
“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.”
No Actually Nate its a good example of your own problem with reading and coming up with half baked answers. Observe what you quoted
“Is it an argument for authenticity based on the fact that anyone that went to Jerusalem from Corinth could confirm or deny the fact given that a large segment of the church there would have had eye witnesses?”
At least there I make it perfectly clear that it is the eyewitnesses that would be there not that the event had to take place at Jerusalem. Fact of the early church is that most of the early participants Did attach themselves to the church at Jerusalem. Why? its where the apostles were located. Thats where the church had home base. Thats repeated over and over in Acts. Again Nate how could you have been a Bible teacher and not know this? What kind of “Bible teacher” were you? So again you are wrong and my point stands “a large segment of the church there would have had eyewitnesses”. Actually to that and many other events. You guys really should do some reading beyond quote mining and trying to find contradictions. its pretty obvious you don’t grasp key issues in regard to what you are trying to rebut
“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”
Nate I’ve been meaning to ask?why is your research always so pathetically poor? None of your own links point exclusively to the 500 but to the general argument of eye witnesses which goes well beyond I COr 15
“And it’s simply not a good argument.”
The argument is fine as expressed in all of your links since none of them are exclusive to I Corinthians 15 as you pretend. Instead they are references to eyewitness of the Gospels, of the apostles, of the church and of several named peopled in it.
Now will you counter argue the point? Sure but the idea that eye witness accounts extending beyond the 500 are all of no consequence is just begging. It counts for something (even legal evidence) that the gospels attest to the events. It counts for something that another figure paul attests to it. It counts for something that it was the early church’s creed which consisted of thousands of people at a historical geographic Jerusalem. It counts for something that an institution called the church that was so sure of it that they gave up privileges in support of it.
In no court of law would that be a poor argument. Incomplete perhaps but not poor. I’d reserve the poor argument label to your claims of animals somehow explaining our fine tuned sense of morality. now that WAS a poor argument. I’d say even desperately poor.
“. 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.”
You misread again Nate. Offend would imply that I expected you to do better than give a point by point rebuttal to an article you can’t remember enough of to do a Google search and find. Given your misapplication of the links above pretending that they are based on Paul’s 500 verse only confirms my real expectations were correct.
But good night we must get the post out even if its probably a hatchet job based on not remembering enough of its details. I do understand. 🙂
LikeLike
“I can totally see this being the explanation and even concede it as a point. Like you, I think that is a relatively small issue and easily explained. ‘
actually its not small at all. its a total non-point because you seem blissfully unaware as you have been in other ways that the Judas was replaced by another eyewitness so that there is no issue with Paul saying the twelve
“How quickly did they cast those lots to replace him with Stephen?”
Lol….oh my….As Yoda might say the bible illiteracy is strong with these ones. Judas was never replaced with anyone called stephen.
“The much bigger issue (that Mike seems to think he’s debunked) that no names were given. That Jesus allegedly appeared to the eleven isn’t news, ”
Thoroughly debunked. Three names are given 12 people are designated. The fact that it isn’t news means the sum total of Nada. Its still 13 identifiable witnesses
“Because I don’t just jump on the bandwagon of this supposed debunking I’m being dishonest. No, I’ve conceded that the passage mentions the disciples/apostles. ”
No what makes you dishonest is that the first time you posted this you claimed no names whatsoever when that got debunked you just moved the goal post
“Why anyone would think that mentioning 500 random people without [at least some] names or locations would be convincing to anyone except a believer is puzzling. ”
Yes ruth because if you ever hear Anyone say “Jim and I
went to church ad we heard the Pastor cursing in fact everyone in the church heard him cursing it would be curious as to why they would expect you to believe them since they did not give names of the church people in attendance at that time.
LikeLike
“You are a Dickhead. I honestly think that’s the most relevant comment you deserve.”
Or the best you could come up with.
LikeLike
“Thats where the church had home base. Thats repeated over and over in Acts.”
Hey, here’s a plan – let’s take that case into the hypothetical court of law you mentioned, and tell the judge that we have an anonymous witness, about whom we know nothing, and who can’t be cross-examined as to credibility, due to being somewhat dead, who wrote of a set of circumstances, claiming, without evidence, that those circumstances existed 100 years earlier, and likely well before the anonymous author was even born. Wonder what a judge would do with that?
LikeLike
Mike,
I could really do without the vitriol. It distracts from the arguments you’re trying to make.
I grant that many here are responding in kind. So, everyone, what do you say? Can we all tone it down and actually discuss the issues at hand, instead of jokes, name-calling and bluster? At least for a little while. I’d like to see if there’s actually any content worth considering.
LikeLike
“Yes ruth because if you ever hear Anyone say “Jim and I
went to church ad we heard the Pastor cursing in fact everyone in the church heard him cursing it would be curious as to why they would expect you to believe them since they did not give names of the church people in attendance at that time.”
Mike , if I told you the majority of people participating in this post commented that you were full of crap , you could easily verify this by going back and reading comments.
If I told you that I showed your comments to this post to 500 people in front of the Empire State Building and they all confirmed you were full of crap , this would have to be met with skepticism and could not be verified .
But some on this post would believe it ! 🙂
I think this is what Ruth was trying to convey to you before you started to belittle her.
LikeLike
Sorry, ratamacue0 . You’re right.
LikeLike
“If I told you that I showed your comments to this post to 500 people in front of the Empire State Building and they all confirmed you were full of crap , this would have to be met with skepticism and could not be verified . ”
Your analogy is poor and therefore the point is meaningless, the 12 is an identifier and the 500 are located in Israel and was surely part of the church at jerusalem. So let me fix your analogy
“”If I told you that I showed your comments to this post to 500 people who are part of the Empire State Building preservation society and they all confirmed you were a wonderful human being because they were not atheists would that be a confirmable statement?”
Why yes because it is conceivable I could go to New york and check on the society and verify whether it was true.
the end.
LikeLike
“Why yes because it is conceivable I could go to New york and check on the society and verify whether it was true.”
Go back 2000 years. How would you go about verifying the 500 ? I would love to hear your plan.
.
LikeLike
“I could really do without the vitriol. It distracts from the arguments you’re trying to make.”
Ratamac the vitriol from your side detracts from the arguments they make.Its a two way street
LikeLike
Using the evidence you have in the bible of course.
LikeLike
Mark,
“the vitriol from your side detracts from the arguments they make.Its a two way street”
Thus the rest of my post, where I asked if everyone can let up for a while.
And even if some won’t, maybe you can be the better man?
LikeLike
“Go back 2000 years. How would you go about verifying the 500 ? I would love to hear your plan.”
If I went back to when it was written I’d go to the place that the events of the resurrection were said to take place and ask around. Thats just common sense. Whats so difficult? Since I can’t then the indirect evidence of the church and the fact that historically people attested to it would be one thing I would consider but since I could not ask them myself then it would require a bit more. For me thats prophecy.
LikeLike
“Thus the rest of my post, where I asked if everyone can let up for a while.
And even if some won’t, maybe you can be the better man?”
The way you phrased you posts does nothing to hide your bias. According to you your friends are merely responding in kind (that was the “rest of your post) when in fact this is not my first time posting here. In the last thread during what I thought was a civil conversation one of them launched into name calling of asshole.
LikeLike