I encounter people who reject the Gospels as being historically valuable unless a part of it is supported by another historical source. The assumption is that the Gospels should be seen as false unless there is outside support. I found some quotes from Richard Bauckham (JSNT 31.2 2008) that put this into perspective.
“The burden of proof … usually lies with the doubter. What protects us from gullibility is alertness to reasons for doubting a testimony, but this is not the same as treating all testimony as dubious until we have produced reasons for relying on it. Comprehensive doubt is impossible.”
“[W]e can return to the much more normal historical procedure of assessing our sources as sources. If we consider them trustworthy, then we have to rely on them, without expecting to be able to verify independently everything they say. (There may be special cases where this is possible, but they will be exceptional.) This is a normal and rational procedure, not uncritical gullibility. It is what historians regularly do with sources.”
If you want to learn more about this, I highly recommend Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
“The burden of proof … usually lies with the doubter…”
You must be joking right? So, if I spin you a story about how aliens crash landed in my back-yard and you doubt it, you now have the burden of proof? As the doubter? Come on. That’s insane.
Sorry, this is just such lame apologetics 101 and it’s not funny any-more. You are the one making the claim. The burden of proof therefore is on you, just as John’s gospel states:
John 20:31- But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
This is not about apologetics, it is about history. Historians do not look at a text and assume that it is all false until proven true. And yet critics want the Bible held to a different standard than other ancient texts.
Minson,
Do you understand the historical method? Do you hold the works of all historical figures to the same nonsensical standard you wish to hold the Bible? There are no philosophical freebies here, and if you want to dispute the overwhelming evidence for the Gospels then you had better make your case.
Danny
Stephen Bedard: “…And yet critics want the Bible held to a different standard than other ancient texts…”
Well duh – of course they do. And why is that? The bible is filled with miracle claims and magical moments. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see other historical documents claiming theirs is the “one true faith” and that belief in this document is necessary for the after-life. Do you believe all of the claims of the Koran? What about those of I think not. What of those of the Hermetica? Somehow I doubt it.
You are clouding the issue here Mr Bedard. The bible cannot be understood as a just another “historical document” given the outrageous claims it makes. Please be reasonable.
DM: “overwhelming evidence for the Gospels…”
What evidence is that exactly? I have no need to “make my case” as the burden of proof isn’t on me, it’s on the one making the claims, despite the words of apologists masquerading as historians.
Bedard: “This is not about apologetics, it is about history…”
Yes, of course. You clearly have no vested or biased interest in liberating the claims of this ancient magic book, do you?
Minson,
What overwhelming evidence? The evidence that verifies the historicity of the Gospels; do you understand the concept of evidence? What evidence specifically do you dispute?
Yes you do need to make your case, since you are making a positive claim. You clearly do not understand your obligations. Are you seriously trying to present yourself as claim-free?
Who are these apologists masquerading as historians? Or is this yet more hot air from the ignorant?
Do you doubt the Koran? The burden of proof lies with the doubter.
Any ancient source requires external evidence – and when it comes to the bible there are close to none – and when we are talking the gospels there are absolutely zero.
Please let’s stop applying circellus logicus vitiosus – it’s 2012 for God’s sake!
Regarding the Qur’an, that is a different story because it contains very little historical narrative. If it described a historical event, I would not assume that it was false.
The point of the post is the way critics treat the Gospels is not the way historians treat other ancient texts. Historians do not begin with extreme skepticism.
Historians do actually begin with extreme scepticism. The concept of history as writing what actually took place is a product of the enlightenment and absolutely foreign to medieval and even more so to ancient texts.
jbjorholm
What are you talking about?
All world-views are circular; what’s your point?
Plenty of first and second century Christian writings cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is almost possible to put together the entire New Testament from early Christian sources alone. What is your point, exactly?
You talk about “extreme scepticism”; but what do you mean by this, exactly? You talk of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was supposed to hold Church dogma to account through unimpeded historical examination; and yet, all the enlightenment did was produce so-called critics who can muster nothing more than personal incredulity and outright rejection based on a priori assumptions; and not on critical historical examination.
I’m not referring to your worldview but to your hermeneutics. You’re basically claiming that the gospels are historical (the events described actually happened) because the bible says so. If you’d apply the same principle to the Quran you’d have to come to the same conclusion.
You seem to be confusing historical and textual evidence when mentioning early writings supporting the gospel texts. I’m well aware of the amount of mss and the early references to those – but that valuable only as constructing your text it does not point to any historical events. That is, no matter how well supported the wording of a bible text is, it does not prove that the events of which it speaks actually took place.
You seem to have forgotten your own words, to which I was responding:
“Any ancient source requires external evidence – and when it comes to the bible there are close to none – and when we are talking the gospels there are absolutely zero.”
My response:
“Plenty of first and second century Christian writings cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is almost possible to put together the entire New Testament from early Christian sources alone.”
Thus we have external sources outside of the Bible from the first and second centuries which cite (altogether) practically the entire NT. This is good evidence that the entire NT was written in the first century A.D. And the internal evidence within the Gospels themselves suggests the NT was written in the first century.
But let’s take your “external source” claim. What you really want to say is that, in order for (say) the resurrection of Christ to be regarded as historical, there must be non-Christian sources who verify the resurrection in order for the resurrection to be considered an historical event. Now you need to prove this claim, because it is far from self-evident. In fact, on inspection, it is patently absurd, since non-Christian sources are not likely to affirm Christian dogma. This indicates that you do not really understand the historical method at all.
How do you know what my hermeneutic is? And how can you be referring to my hermeneutic when we have not talked prior to the post you have just addressed? Do you understand what Biblical hermeneutics entails?
“I’m well aware of the amount of mss and the early references to those – but that valuable only as constructing your text it does not point to any historical events. That is, no matter how well supported the wording of a bible text is…”
This is a classic symptom of the a priori assumptions I spoke of earlier. You practically fall over yourself admitting how well supported the Bible is… and in the next breath you say this does not point to any historical events… I mean, only in the topsy-turvy world of enlightenment-spawned atheism can more supporting historical evidence lead only to a stagnate theory, no matter how abundant the evidence. I guess you could even say that the evidence is just too good to be believed – anything to hold onto one’s inherent presuppositions. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
“… it does not prove that the events of which it speaks actually took place.”
And here is the last bastion of the floundering. You talk of proof, but who ever mentioned proof? You are chopping and changing as this goes on; unless you are conflating evidence and proof?
“The point of the post is the way critics treat the Gospels is not the way historians treat other ancient texts. Historians do not begin with extreme skepticism.”
That’s because the gospels are clearly religious, not historical, in nature, written to serve a theological-church polemical agenda ala the The Book of Daniel or the Book of Tobit — as opposed to a historio-political agenda like Herodotus or Polybius. Narrative theology and sacred biography are highly unstable genres upon which to make any kind of historical judgement at all. The purpose of such stories is to teach theological lessons using human-seeming characters, places, and events that the reader can relate to and identify with, not to dispassionately record events, which e.g. The Book of Daniel or The Gospel of Mark do not do, and never intended to do.
Historians DO begin with extreme skepticism when reading ancient texts that purport to tell of miraculous events. Please tell me why they should make just this one exception.
Blood,
The Gospels are historical, nevertheless – I mean, how can you even deny this? Do you realise that you are falling into the same a priori trap I mentioned earlier? On what basis do you claim the Gospels are not historical? Please give me something other than your own presuppositions; this is, after all, history we are discussing here…
Again with the “extreme skepticism”… Please outline the “extreme Skepticism” applied to Plato’s “The Republic” by the historian…
Plato’s politeia does not refer to historical events! But to prove the point – Any historian working with Plato’s texts on the sayings and life of Socrates will definitely conclude that the Socrates there is a product of Plato and not of history!
And yet when historians talk about the death of Socrates, they use Plato as a historical source.
So what? It is still an historic work. Can *you* define this “extreme scepticism” and what it encompasses? And how does this extreme scepticism apply to the existence or otherwise of Plato ‘himself’?
DM,
Um, no, religious tracts teaching moral lessons are not “historical” in any modern sense of that word, just as sacred biography is not biographical in the modern sense of that word. We are talking about genre and context here. The Book of Tobit is not a history book. There never was a Tobit, or a son named Tobias, or a woman named Sarah who was incredibly unlucky in choosing husbands. Just because the book has the contours of an actual biography in a historical setting doesn’t mean that it’s historical — or was intended to be.
Mark and Matthew were not writing history — however, they were familiar with some Greek literature and history, and possibly Josephus, as well as the Septuagint and it’s genre of narrative theology. Therefore, their writing serves a dual purpose — it was pious and fanciful enough to interest the simple folk on the story level, but serious-sounding at the discourse level, thereby interesting the literate and educated.
Blood,
You are all over the place. Aside form being prescriptive and prophetic, the Bible is, quite clearly, an historic account of the people of God covering thousands of years, clearly describing people, places and events in history, and in differing degrees of detail. Much of this detail has been verified from archaeology. You are blinded by your own presuppositions, and this is making you say some pretty stupid things; at this point I cannot do much more than pity your ignorance.
I reject Tobit; I reject the apocrypha. What’s your point? The apocrypha does indeed contain some useful historical information. Bafflingly, your point appears to be: “this book here is not an historical book; therefore *that* book there is not an historical book.” Is this really your coup de grâce? Is this it?
Mark and Matthew were not writing history? Don’t you think it would’ve been nice if someone had told them that? They were certainly under the impression they were recording real events. Josephus’ writings cover a number of figures familiar to Christians, including John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests and the Pharisees. Not to mention, of course, Jesus Himself. So, contrary to your flamboyant claim here, it is far more realistic to say that Josephus was familiar with the writings of Mark and Matthew.
As for “simple folk”, one cannot resist the urge to point out that your ramblings appear to be the product of an extremely simple mind. Indeed, your ‘arguments’ are beyond embarrassment.
“Regarding the Qur’an, that is a different story because it contains very little historical narrative. If it described a historical event, I would not assume that it was false.”
Stephen, have you looked at the Koran or any commentaries of it? It is written as a history / autobiography. The Muslim consider it completely historical. Until recently, most scholars who looked at it considered it completely historical because it was accompanied by (I believe they’re called) hadith, which are chains of testimony from one religious leader to another authenticating various passages. The koranic chains of testimony are far more complete than bibilical ones.
But that’s internal testimony with little, if any, outside support. The only way to verify any of the Koran, even partially, has been to look at internal evidence, a process that is increasing despite occasional death threats to the scholars (see “Why I am not a Muslim” and other books by Ibn Wariq for a start). The result has been the same as with the Bible – too many internal inconsistencies to credit it as a strictly historical text. In fact, it appears that – just as with the Bible and the Book of Mormon – much of the Koran is unverifiable from outside sources (including archeology) and is probably fictitious if not mythical.
Here’s an example that I cite occasionally. A friend of mine, a professional magician, used to date a woman who strongly believed in miracles. They were watching a daytime talk show featuring some sort of guru who performed a few miracles for the audience. She was amazed and enthralled by this and wanted to look into studying under this guru. My friend pointed out that he could perform every miracle that the guru had just performed and he could do some of them better. She turned to him and said, “Yes, but he’s real and you’re a fake.”.
Every time I read a religious or historical document, I always have to ask myself, “Yes, but is it real or a fake?”. What do you ask yourself?
I have read the Qur’an and it most definitely not written as autobiography. There is very little information about Muhammad in the Qur’an. It would be a lot easier to write a biography of Jesus based on the Gospels than trying to write a biography of Muhammad from the Qur’an. However, I am not arguing that there is no historical material in the Qur’an. I am just saying it is a completely different genre from the Gospels. The Gospels are ancient biographies and the Qur’an is a collection of prophetic oracles. That difference in genre is going to affect interpretation and definitely will affect how they are viewed as historical sources. My original point is not that I am not biased against the Qur’an, I would consider some narrative portions as historical even if we did not have other texts supporting it.
DM,
“Aside form being prescriptive and prophetic, the Bible is, quite clearly, an historic account of the people of God covering thousands of years, clearly describing people, places and events in history, and in differing degrees of detail. Much of this detail has been verified from archaeology. You are blinded by your own presuppositions, and this is making you say some pretty stupid things; at this point I cannot do much more than pity your ignorance.”
As I pity your credulity.
“I reject Tobit; I reject the apocrypha. What’s your point? The apocrypha does indeed contain some useful historical information. Bafflingly, your point appears to be: “this book here is not an historical book; therefore *that* book there is not an historical book.” Is this really your coup de grâce? Is this it?”
Your arbitrary and highly subjective criteria for accepting or rejecting certain holy texts is irrelevant. The point is that the same literary approach that went into writing the Book of Tobit also informed the writing of holy texts that you do accept. It’s the same genre: narrative theology. It’s not history, and wasn’t intended to be.
“Mark and Matthew were not writing history? Don’t you think it would’ve been nice if someone had told them that? They were certainly under the impression they were recording real events. Josephus’ writings cover a number of figures familiar to Christians, including John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests and the Pharisees. Not to mention, of course, Jesus Himself. So, contrary to your flamboyant claim here, it is far more realistic to say that Josephus was familiar with the writings of Mark and Matthew.”
It’s not a flamboyant claim at all. Mainstream scholarship recognizes the influence of Josephus on the NT writers.
“As for “simple folk”, one cannot resist the urge to point out that your ramblings appear to be the product of an extremely simple mind. Indeed, your ‘arguments’ are beyond embarrassment.”
You haven’t actually engaged with any of my points, you’ve just thrown up your inerrancy force-field and pretended to yourself that’s sufficient. No one is impressed, except perhaps yourself.
Blood,
“As I pity your credulity.”
Is that all you have to say in answer to the preceding paragraph?
“You are all over the place. Aside form being prescriptive and prophetic, the Bible is, quite clearly, an historic account of the people of God covering thousands of years, clearly describing people, places and events in history, and in differing degrees of detail. Much of this detail has been verified from archaeology. You are blinded by your own presuppositions, and this is making you say some pretty stupid things; at this point I cannot do much more than pity your ignorance.”
Would you care to actually engage me? The Bible clearly gives an historic account of God’s people. If you want to attack Christianity then you need to do so on its own terms, not your own skewed misunderstanding! Simply skipping past the point doesn’t do you any favours.
“Your arbitrary and highly subjective criteria for accepting or rejecting certain holy texts is irrelevant.”
How can you know my criteria for rejecting Tobit (and the apocrypha as a whole) as inspired? Would you like to get into this? I’d be more than happy to explain this to you.
“The point is that the same literary approach that went into writing the Book of Tobit also informed the writing of holy texts that you do accept. It’s the same genre: narrative theology. It’s not history, and wasn’t intended to be.”
It looks to me like you’re repeating something you have seen or heard elsewhere. The above is simply disjointed. Prove the above claim, or at least elaborate. Do you understand what books like Tobit actually say? Also, do you understand the terms you are using? What do you mean when you talk about “narrative theology”? Why are you so emphatically applying a 20th century concept to books written over 2000 years ago?
“It’s not a flamboyant claim at all. Mainstream scholarship recognizes the influence of Josephus on the NT writers.”
Okay. Please state what you have, and we’ll discuss it…
“You haven’t actually engaged with any of my points, you’ve just thrown up your inerrancy force-field and pretended to yourself that’s sufficient. No one is impressed, except perhaps yourself.”
I’ve engaged you thoroughly; you have largely ignored what I have written. That is your prerogative, but please don’t insult us both with such an absurd claim.