Atheism 6 - Can the Biblical Record be Trusted?

Note: If you haven't already, you should read over all previous posts before proceeding.  These posts build upon previous information; they do not stand alone.  Starting at the end is like criticizing the selection of a hip v. gable roof without knowing anything about the walls and foundation.

Another Note: Sorry this has taken so long.  There are three reasons why I'm so late in getting around to this post: (1) for the last couple of weeks, my spiritual journey has taken me in directions unrelated to the topic at hand, (2) at the moment, there doesn't seem to be much interest in this blog, and (3) I've long known that this was going to be the hardest topic to tackle, and I've spent the time doing a lot more research than I have on previous pages.  Still, I promised to get through this, and a promise is a promise.

Our question today is "can the Biblical record be trusted as historically accurate?" The answer, of course, is "that depends."  One of the most common mistakes made by believers and non-believers alike is thinking of the Bible as a book.  After all, it looks like a book, bound up in vellum or leather as it is.  It is not a book, however, and this acknowledgement is critical.  The Bible as we have it today is a library of books; sixty-six of them in the current Protestant scripture.  Are all of them historically accurate?  No, but they're not all meant to be.

If one reads a book on Texas history and comes across the statement that Texas is the only state in the Union whose charter of annexation allows it to secede at will, one knows that statement to be false (for those who didn't grow up in Texas, this actually is a real claim made by many, including some history teachers).  Not only does no such provision exist, history tells us that it didn't work out too well the one time we tried it!  Since this statement is patently false, it tends to make all other statements in the book suspect in the mind of the critical reader, as well it should.

However, the same does not hold true for a library of books.  Libraries are divided into sections, some on history, some on art, etc.  There's usually a large section dedicated to "fiction."  All of the stories one might read in this section are false, and intentionally so.  However, one does not assume that because the stories contained in the fiction section are false, those in the history section must be equally so.

Just so with the Bible.  Those stories contained in Genesis are intentionally false, at least in regards to the history of the universe.  They are a collection of myths, not all of Jewish origin.  And for those who may already be doubting my thesis, that every syllable of Scripture must be historically accurate, keep in mind that Genesis was not originally a Christian text, but Jewish.  Should you wish to challenge my statement, I suggest you ask a rabbi.  This is not difficult.  As Lewis Black so eloquently pointed out, "they live among you."  They are readily available within your community.

My point is this - realizing that there are myths in Genesis does not necessarily make the biography of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels historically suspicious simply because they exist within the same cover.  This is not to say one cannot question the historical accuracy of the Gospels (as we are about to do); rather it is to point out that doing so cannot be held as logically valid simply because of their existence within the covers of the Bible.

My next argument will be derived from a short passage contained within the Gospel of Mark.  Let us then examine the historical and literary context of this book.

Most of the arguments I have heard against the accuracy of Mark (and almost the entire New Testament, for that matter) center on the belief that New Testament texts were written so long after the facts cited that they cannot possibly be considered accurate, that myths and legends must have arisen in the intervening years.  I am even aware of a number of archeological and philosophical papers that contend that a minimum of two centuries transpired between the events recorded in the Gospels and those gospels' writing (notably the writings of F.C. Baur, et al).  There is a fairly strong argument here or, more accurately, there was once a strong argument here.  More recent archeological findings, however, dispel this belief.

William F. Albright, in Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, emphatically dates the whole of New Testament writings as being no later than 80 CE.  Sir William Ramsay places the writings of Luke (Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles) as mid-first century (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament).  John A.T. Robinson is convinced that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of the temple in 70 CE (Redating the New Testament).  I spent a fair amount of time on Google and was unable to come across a single source that dates the Gospel of Mark any time later than 85 CE, with most scholars dating it to sometime around 66-69 CE.  Furthermore, virtually all modern scholars believe that the Synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke) are all based on an earlier, undiscovered gospel code-named Q (from the German "quelle", meaning "source").  If so, then Q must have been written no later than 50-65 CE.  I could go on and on.  There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scholarly works on the subject.

The point is this - as of this writing, virtually all archeological, literary and historical sources indicate that the books contained in the New Testament were written and circulated by the middle of the first century and that those copies currently extant are very close if not identical copies of the originals.  In other words, they were written well within the lifetimes of most of the characters depicted therein.  Furthermore, they were written within the lifetimes of many people in authority who would have had a vested interest in refuting many of the claims made within, yet no single opposing writing has been discovered!  Nothing from Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High Priest, or even the courts of Caesars Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero or Galba, during whose reigns all of this took place.  To be sure, Nero and others had issues with the concepts and tenets taught by the first century church, but they are strangely silent as to the historical accuracy of early Christian texts.  In his book Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed at All, David Fitzgerald uses a lack of corroborating evidence to disprove Scripture, but, within the text, even he implies that the available evidence is sketchy and far from complete, allowing for the correspondingly valid argument that the lack of refuting evidence is equally compelling as an indication of the Gospels' truth. Furthermore, in making his claim of missing corroboration, Fitzgerald apparently ignores completely the writings of Josephus, Thallus, Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Lucian of Samosata, Celsus, the Talmud, and the Toledot Yeshua, none of whom could be considered Christian authors/writings.  Not all of these ancient documents support the Divine claims of the Gospels, but each of them do confirm their historical accuracy.

My conclusion was simple: if there is a sizable mountain of historical evidence to support the accuracy of the texts and virtually no historical evidence against it, it would be illogical to refute Scriptural accuracy - certainly in as far as New Testament books go - simply because "I don't wike it!"  What you have here is an extremely brief overview of decades worth of research.  If in doubt, feel free to look it up yourself.  I'll wait. 😊

Next up - finally getting around to the question of the divinity of Jesus.

Pax