A Case for the Bible Without Using the Bible?

[Josh]

Elsewhere, atheist jon wrote:

So let me ask YOU something. Without referencing the Bible, how do you make a case for the veracity of the Bible?

Read more: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=exist&thread=3475&page=1#ixzz1bGjvZu7l

First off, let me ask you, is there a reason for the stipulation, without referencing the Bible? And what exactly do you mean by referencing?

If I want to make a case for the authenticity of, say, the The United States Constitution, as a document, are you suggesting that there are no internal evidences within than document that help demonstrate it's historical validity- that can be brought to bear?

[atheist jon]

"If I want to make a case for the authenticity of, say, the The United States Constitution, as a document, are you suggesting that there are no internal evidences within than document that help demonstrate it's historical validity- that can be brought to bear?"

Good question. Yes there are. Though which internal evidences you cite is obviously up to you. Let me try and explain. Where the United States Constitution as a document makes references to things happening concurrently within that era, it ALSO has external sources backing up its veracity as a valid document. More detailed and accurate history about it's authors, for example. Copies made at the time. Contemporaneously made reports of speeches and historical accounts of the entire process. And of course general literacy rates and mass communication were much better in the culture and time in which the United States Constitution was written than two thousand years ago in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, there were plenty of historians around at the time of Jesus. Either nobody is referencing these guys, or they have referenced them but come up with nothing.

Therefore, whilst I can prove the veracity of the United States Constitution using both internal, and more importantly EXTERNAL sources that pose no conflict with each other, I cannot do the same with the Bible.

So that leads me to ask how you can make a case without internal referencing or evidences? However...


So what do I mean by referencing? I guess I just don't feel that being quoted scripture passes as a very strong demonstration that the bible is correct. But then I suppose I wouldn't, would I? But hey, see it from my point of view. "The Bible is true because it says so in the...... ermmm....... Bible?"

So in reply to your original question regarding historical references, by all means use the Bible to cross-reference with external sources in your quest to verify it's truth, if you can find any external sources with which to cross-reference.

I might add that all this should not imply that I think the Bible is totally without merits as a book.

[Josh]

Good question. Yes there are. Though which internal evidences you cite is obviously up to you. Let me try and explain. Where the United States Constitution as a document makes references to things happening concurrently within that era, it ALSO has external sources backing up its veracity as a valid document. More detailed and accurate history about it's authors, for example. Copies made at the time. Contemporaneously made reports of speeches and historical accounts of the entire process. And of course general literacy rates and mass communication were much better in the culture and time in which the United States Constitution was written than two thousand years ago in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, there were plenty of historians around at the time of Jesus. Either nobody is referencing these guys, or they have referenced them but come up with nothing.

All the same sources of internal and external validation you cite above for the constitution are available for the Bible in varying degrees.

Of course, the Bible is a huge document composed over at least 1,000 years, and we have better external evidence of it's events for some eras than others.

But, let's take the New Testament accounts. Are you aware of the extra-biblical sources validating the existence of Jesus?

I guess I just don't feel that being quoted scripture passes as a very strong demonstration that the bible is correct. But then I suppose I wouldn't, would I? But hey, see it from my point of view. "The Bible is true because it says so in the...... ermmm....... Bible?"

One of the most frustrating things for me as a Christian teenager, wavering between faith and skepticism was to hear Christians use the circular logic of "The Bible is true because it says it is". So, I don't even have to "see it from your point of view". That is my view. That's just bad reasoning.

[stevekimes]

The problem with "proving" the Bible from outside sources is that the outside sources have to find the events significant while they are happening. That's easy with huge events that immediately effected thousands of people who were of the same group as the historian. This is why we have so much Greek history-- the Greeks found history to be significant.

But ancient history, for the most part, is accounting. Thousands and thousands of records of cattle, sheep and taxes. Then, as now, was what was considered most important. Even the NT indicates that at the time of Jesus, John the Baptist was a more important Jewish figure in first century Judaism, as was, of course, the various high priests and the Herods. Jesus isn't mentioned much because he started a movement which was (in his own words) a "mustard seed". It was supposed to be small and insignificant, and thus, of little historical use.

Nevertheless, we do have some indications of Jesus from outside sources. Josephus has a text about Jesus which is rightfully disputed. However, John Meier, in his book A Marginal Jew, showed how there is a core of original text in the midst of that disputed text. In other words, it is possible that someone added Christological language to a basic statement Josephus was making.

In Roman texts there are indications of the Christian movement from the first century.

But if you are looking for proof of Jesus outside of those who knew or respected him, in his own time, good luck with that. Ancient history rarely works that way. Try finding objective about Alexander the Great or Hammurabi or Troy from their own time period. We need to deal with what we've got.

Whatever historical principles you make about the Bible, make sure they are the same principles you use for all ancient historical texts. Were the strict principles applied to the Bible also applied to other ancient texts, we'd find ancient history being nothing but sand slipping through our fingers.

[Josh]

For more on the "outside evidence" for Jesus, here's a great thread:
Did Jesus exist? The undisputed facts

But, it's unclear to me whether Jon's question in more general or if he actually doubts the existence of Jesus (I don't want to assume that).