One objection which unbelievers typically raise against the Bible is that Bible history lacks credibility because so many of the reported events lack multiple-attestation. Or even in cases where they do enjoy multiple-attestation, they still lack credibility given the religious bias of the narrator.
To this, Christian apologists typically respond that we believe many historical reports with little or no multiple-attestation. What is more, we believe many historical reports even though the witness may well be biased to some degree.
And I think that’s a sufficient response, for it answers the averate unbeliever on his own terms. However, it’s possible for the unbeliever to bite the proverbial bullet at this juncture. He could always say, “Perhaps we don’t know as much about the past as we think we do. Maybe we’re too credulous. Maybe our easy confidence in the historical record is misplaced.”
That would at least be consistent. However, if an unbeliever made that move, he would pay a price.
For the average unbeliever doesn’t content himself with the claim that Scripture lacks adequate corroboration. Rather, he usually alleges that Scripture is historically inaccurate. That it contains historical mistakes–contradicting what we know about the past from other sources.
But, of course, he has to resign that objection if he’s going to invoke historical scepticism in general to justify his specific scepticism in reference to Bible history. Like using your right hand to sever your left hand, then using your severed left hand to sever your right hand.
My brother was telling me recently about how he picked up a few books on military assessments of biblical battles.
ReplyDeleteHe told me that even soldiers who otherwise had no interest in religion apparently found the biblical documents useful to consult during WWI when some Allied troops were stuck in Palestine and decided to consult biblical texts. The reasoning was, it seems, that if they could figure out how soldiers used the terrain to their advantage during the biblical period then perhaps they could save their own skins.
The axiom tends to be that in especially from a military perspective the winner writes history. But in the case of biblical literature it's frequently the reverse. Israel became a divided kingdom and fell apart slowly which arguably makes the entire Bible, in terms of military history, a narrative written by some of the most conspicuous losers in the history of the world.
"Like using your right hand to sever your left hand, then using your severed left hand to sever your right hand."
ReplyDeleteOwww-eeeee!! That is so graphically frightening!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point in this point but it would seem a rather Pyrrhic victory for the Christian if the skeptic came to the conclusion that we don't know much about the past. This skepticism (presumably) derives from disappointment with the results of historical inquiry, and is based upon the premise that many if not most historical accounts are not just unverifiable, but actually mistaken. It seems to me that the right response is to argue that in general ancient authors were no more or less likely to get it right than modern authors, and specifically in the case of the Gospels we actually have positive evidence to think that they got it mostly right.
JD Walters,
ReplyDelete"This skepticism (presumably) derives from disappointment with the results of historical inquiry, and is based upon the premise that many if not most historical accounts are not just unverifiable, but actually mistaken."
In order to conclude that an account is mistaken, one would have to have a standard (known to be right) against which to make the determination. For example, we know account Y is true; since account X contradicts account Y, account X must be false.
In the case of history, the accounts being used as the standard are themselves historical documents and, therefore, probably unverifiable (at best) or mistaken (at worst).
So how is the comparison being made?
Hi JD. Always nice to hear from you.
ReplyDelete"I agree with your point in this point but it would seem a rather Pyrrhic victory for the Christian if the skeptic came to the conclusion that we don't know much about the past."
Well, in this post I was attempting to anticipate a possible fallback position by the unbeliever, then parry his response (at the same level).
"This skepticism (presumably) derives from disappointment with the results of historical inquiry, and is based upon the premise that many if not most historical accounts are not just unverifiable, but actually mistaken."
No, that would be inconsistent. One can't entertain global scepticism about historical knowledge, but simultaneously claim that many if not most historical accounts are actually mistaken. For one would need some standard of reference to impugn their historical accuracy.
That's why I was attempting to put the sceptic in a bind.
"It seems to me that the right response is to argue that in general ancient authors were no more or less likely to get it right than modern authors, and specifically in the case of the Gospels we actually have positive evidence to think that they got it mostly right."
I think that's a good constructive follow-up.