About The Holy Bible (1/?): Historical Corroboration
You know, I find it depressing that I need write this at all. I would have hoped that my fellow human beings would not be so credulous as to accept so many “facts” about the Bible (I am referring to the christian bible, though many of my points will apply to both the jewish and muslim faiths as well) at face value. And yet, time and again I hear Christian apologists making claims like, “the Bible is validated by scientific discoveries.” What? You’re joking, right?
So, I’m going to write a (hopefully) short series debunking these claims, with a title shamelessly stolen from Robert G Ingersoll, who is a hero of mine. Your time will be much better spent reading his article than mine, if you have not already done so.
I’m not going to be saying anything that hasn’t been said before; the primary purpose of these brief articles will be as something that I can point to in the future when an apologist starts making claims of the sort that can be seen in a response to a previous article. I don’t think I’ll convince the kind of people who make these claims in the first place, but perhaps a more open-minded theist will stumble upon it somehow.
Each part will consist of a category of claims, some examples of such claims, why they are wrong, and some links to additional information. If anyone thinks I have left something out, that my analysis is weak, or that I am not being objective (I cannot be unbiased, but I strive for objectivity,) let me know.
Part 1: Historical Corroboration
What do I mean by historical corroboration? This is the claim that the truth of the bible is supported by external historical records. I am not referring to archaeology (which will be a later article,) but to actual recorded events. It generally breaks down into two sub-categories.
---
The first is that claim that the Old Testament refers to historical events that actually occurred. One can easily see that, even if true, it is completely irrelevant. Why?
Well, take the Illiad for an example. We have some reason to think it was at least based on an actual event. But, suppose we somehow got independent data which showed that all of the historical events in the Illiad took place exactly as described. There really was a Helen of Troy, and a Trojan Horse, etc. It all happened. Would this give us good reason to think that Athena and Ares were involved in the war? Of course not. We would assume that the ancients Greeks took actual historical events and laid over them a film of superstition. We would assume they took actual battles and added gods to the narrative.
Thus it is with the Bible. Even if independent historical documents showed that the Old Testament was an accurate reproduction of historical events (which they don’t,) it would not lend any credence to the supernatural claims of the Bible. It is somewhat surplus to requirements, then, to show that independent records do not support the Old Testament in general.
Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, we should consider the claim. First, lets look at a few examples proposed by a poster on my journal. He quotes Daniel 2:39-40 which refers to the rise and fall of empires, one of “brass” and one of “iron.” The poster claims that this refers to Greece (I assume he is talking about Alexander’s empire,) and Rome. This is a very big stretch; the passage clearly could have been referring to any great empires. Maybe they meant the Persian empire, or the Ptolemaic empire. Who knows? The other claim is that Isaiah 23 records the actual fall of cities. Okay, maybe. But I would be unimpressed that the authors of the Bible managed to take note of what was happening around them, and add it to their text.
What is more compelling is what *isn’t* supported by external records. Why? Well, for the reasons above, historical accuracy is not evidence of supernatural claims (unless independent historical records talk about Yahweh walking around.) However, if the historical facts talked about in the Bible are shown to be inaccurate, it would undermine the claim of Biblical infallibility.
The most interesting example of this is the fact that nothing at all in Egyptian records includes anything about Hebrew slaves. The population of Egypt was not over 5 million at the time, and it is out of the question that nearly 1 million people could leave without some kind of record or evidence. There are other problems, such as the naming given to the city of Ramses long before that was actually the name of the city. However, the most damning evidence against the historicity of the Old Testament comes from archeology, which is the topic of a later section of this series.
---
The second sub-category of independent historical corroboration consists of claims that contemporary historians wrote about Jesus, or that independent evidence supports the story. The most often cited example is a roman historian named Tacitus. An excerpt of what he wrote, “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
First of all, there are a lot of historians and textual analysts who dispute the authenticity of the text. If you’re really interested, an internet search will reveal this controversy easily enough. I’m not going to spend time questioning the authenticity of this passage, however, because it doesn’t actually matter.
Why not? Even if I grant the reliability of this passage (I don’t, but hypothetically speaking,) it would demonstrate nothing other than the fact that the gospels were based on a real, historical figure. It says nothing of the supernatural, nothing of virgin births, nothing of resurrection. If you like, I am happy to grant the existence of a historical Jesus: a charismatic (and debatably sane) preacher whose big mouth got him into trouble. This admission presents no difficulty whatsoever to my position.
Demonstrating that certain aspects of the New Testament reflect actual events is not very impressive. It says nothing of the supernatural content. The quickest way to silence an apologist on this issue is to ask: “Is Islam valid simply because Mohammed was a real person, many of whose actions are described in the Muslim holy books (Qur’an and Hadith?)”
Apologists will sometimes use the “empty tomb” argument, as if it were an argument from external sources. In fact, the absolute reliability of the Bible must be established before it can even be said that there definitely was an empty tomb. In any case, even if there was external evidence for an empty tomb (which there is not,) I’ve never understood why this is considered such a compelling argument. Which is more likely, that someone was resurrected and ascended into heaven, or that someone else moved the body?
This analysis gives a very thorough and well researched refutation of all of the empty tomb claims. Read it if you find this argument at all compelling.
---
Admittedly, I chose an easy aspect to start this “series” with. If there was independent corroboration of the parting of the red sea, or eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus, that would be something at least worth considering. However, as I hope I’ve adequately explained, historical corroboration of mundane events lends no credibility at all to the supernatural happenings that may be associated with them. For further reading on this topic, I recommend this excellent article, which explains why the methods most apologists use to analyze historical claims break down completely.
Still to come: prophecy, science, archaeology, biblical reliability and anything else I can think of.
So, I’m going to write a (hopefully) short series debunking these claims, with a title shamelessly stolen from Robert G Ingersoll, who is a hero of mine. Your time will be much better spent reading his article than mine, if you have not already done so.
I’m not going to be saying anything that hasn’t been said before; the primary purpose of these brief articles will be as something that I can point to in the future when an apologist starts making claims of the sort that can be seen in a response to a previous article. I don’t think I’ll convince the kind of people who make these claims in the first place, but perhaps a more open-minded theist will stumble upon it somehow.
Each part will consist of a category of claims, some examples of such claims, why they are wrong, and some links to additional information. If anyone thinks I have left something out, that my analysis is weak, or that I am not being objective (I cannot be unbiased, but I strive for objectivity,) let me know.
Part 1: Historical Corroboration
What do I mean by historical corroboration? This is the claim that the truth of the bible is supported by external historical records. I am not referring to archaeology (which will be a later article,) but to actual recorded events. It generally breaks down into two sub-categories.
---
The first is that claim that the Old Testament refers to historical events that actually occurred. One can easily see that, even if true, it is completely irrelevant. Why?
Well, take the Illiad for an example. We have some reason to think it was at least based on an actual event. But, suppose we somehow got independent data which showed that all of the historical events in the Illiad took place exactly as described. There really was a Helen of Troy, and a Trojan Horse, etc. It all happened. Would this give us good reason to think that Athena and Ares were involved in the war? Of course not. We would assume that the ancients Greeks took actual historical events and laid over them a film of superstition. We would assume they took actual battles and added gods to the narrative.
Thus it is with the Bible. Even if independent historical documents showed that the Old Testament was an accurate reproduction of historical events (which they don’t,) it would not lend any credence to the supernatural claims of the Bible. It is somewhat surplus to requirements, then, to show that independent records do not support the Old Testament in general.
Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, we should consider the claim. First, lets look at a few examples proposed by a poster on my journal. He quotes Daniel 2:39-40 which refers to the rise and fall of empires, one of “brass” and one of “iron.” The poster claims that this refers to Greece (I assume he is talking about Alexander’s empire,) and Rome. This is a very big stretch; the passage clearly could have been referring to any great empires. Maybe they meant the Persian empire, or the Ptolemaic empire. Who knows? The other claim is that Isaiah 23 records the actual fall of cities. Okay, maybe. But I would be unimpressed that the authors of the Bible managed to take note of what was happening around them, and add it to their text.
What is more compelling is what *isn’t* supported by external records. Why? Well, for the reasons above, historical accuracy is not evidence of supernatural claims (unless independent historical records talk about Yahweh walking around.) However, if the historical facts talked about in the Bible are shown to be inaccurate, it would undermine the claim of Biblical infallibility.
The most interesting example of this is the fact that nothing at all in Egyptian records includes anything about Hebrew slaves. The population of Egypt was not over 5 million at the time, and it is out of the question that nearly 1 million people could leave without some kind of record or evidence. There are other problems, such as the naming given to the city of Ramses long before that was actually the name of the city. However, the most damning evidence against the historicity of the Old Testament comes from archeology, which is the topic of a later section of this series.
---
The second sub-category of independent historical corroboration consists of claims that contemporary historians wrote about Jesus, or that independent evidence supports the story. The most often cited example is a roman historian named Tacitus. An excerpt of what he wrote, “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”
First of all, there are a lot of historians and textual analysts who dispute the authenticity of the text. If you’re really interested, an internet search will reveal this controversy easily enough. I’m not going to spend time questioning the authenticity of this passage, however, because it doesn’t actually matter.
Why not? Even if I grant the reliability of this passage (I don’t, but hypothetically speaking,) it would demonstrate nothing other than the fact that the gospels were based on a real, historical figure. It says nothing of the supernatural, nothing of virgin births, nothing of resurrection. If you like, I am happy to grant the existence of a historical Jesus: a charismatic (and debatably sane) preacher whose big mouth got him into trouble. This admission presents no difficulty whatsoever to my position.
Demonstrating that certain aspects of the New Testament reflect actual events is not very impressive. It says nothing of the supernatural content. The quickest way to silence an apologist on this issue is to ask: “Is Islam valid simply because Mohammed was a real person, many of whose actions are described in the Muslim holy books (Qur’an and Hadith?)”
Apologists will sometimes use the “empty tomb” argument, as if it were an argument from external sources. In fact, the absolute reliability of the Bible must be established before it can even be said that there definitely was an empty tomb. In any case, even if there was external evidence for an empty tomb (which there is not,) I’ve never understood why this is considered such a compelling argument. Which is more likely, that someone was resurrected and ascended into heaven, or that someone else moved the body?
This analysis gives a very thorough and well researched refutation of all of the empty tomb claims. Read it if you find this argument at all compelling.
---
Admittedly, I chose an easy aspect to start this “series” with. If there was independent corroboration of the parting of the red sea, or eyewitness accounts of the miracles of Jesus, that would be something at least worth considering. However, as I hope I’ve adequately explained, historical corroboration of mundane events lends no credibility at all to the supernatural happenings that may be associated with them. For further reading on this topic, I recommend this excellent article, which explains why the methods most apologists use to analyze historical claims break down completely.
Still to come: prophecy, science, archaeology, biblical reliability and anything else I can think of.