The Devil's Advocate

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: A Challenge to the Historicity of the Bible

If I walked into your workplace and told you that someone had just towed your car away, you'd probably believe me once you walked outside and saw that your car was gone. But if instead I told you that an alien spaceship had magnetically lifted your car into its own interior and then flown away with it, you'd probably want to see a video, and even then you might not believe me. Why not?  In each case the evidence was exactly the same -- my testimony and your missing car. Why believe one claim but not the other?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

We all apply this principle regularly in our daily lives. It is relevant as well to religious claims such as the resurrection of Jesus. If you claim that a man named Jesus was crucified 2,000 years ago, ordinary historical evidence would probably be enough to convince most people. But if you claim that he rose from the dead, ordinary historical evidence won't be enough, any more than it would be enough to convince most people of a UFO kidnapping or a recent Elvis sighting.

The same applies to the prophecy claims made on behalf of the Bible. Not a single one of the original manuscripts of the Bible has survived. Do we have a copy of any Biblical book of prophecy, for which the copy itself  can be proven, even by ordinary historical evidence, to have been written before the fulfillment of its prophecies? I don't mean vague prophecies like "The King of the North shall invade the King of the South" (Iraq vs. Kuwait?) I mean, for example, do we have a copy of any book of the Gospels that was definitely written before the Roman destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. (since Jesus allegedly predicted it decades in advance)?   If not, then how can we prove that the Gospels were not changed later to make them fit the prophesy? After all, what's easier to believe - that some scribe committed fraud or that someone rose from the dead? That Elvis is still alive or that someone who looks like him was spotted in line at the Burger King in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?

I suspect that most Christians who argue for the historicity of the Bible don't actually believe in the Bible because of historical evidence anyway. They believe in it for reasons they can't prove to anyone else. Not being able to prove something to somebody else doesn't mean it's necessarily not true. I can't prove I love my girlfriend to anyone else (not even her! sniff..) even though it's true.

Let's just be honest, folks, and just admit that belief in the resurrection of Jesus isn't based on historical evidence. If we don't, we're just making Christians look bad.

3 comments:

Todd Gnarly said...

DIE HERETIC!!!

BernieDehler said...

I like you "car disappearance" analogy. Nicely done!

Unknown said...

Counterargument: There is no way that the scriptures could have been changed hundreds of years later to make it conform to actual events that were prophesied. Anyone wanting to change them would have to get to every copy spread out all over the Greco-Roman empire plus Israel. Riding on a donkey.