Apologetics
The Bible as Historical
Many will argue that one cannot properly use the Bible in order to prove the things that the Bible says. After all, we are told, the Bible is just a collection of writings from human authors. But how does objection negate the idea that we can use the Bible? Would that same objection not also apply to other ancient historical sources that come from humans? Now I believe that the Bible is the word of God, but, for the sake of argument, let us say that it is just a collection of writings from strictly human sources. If nothing else, it claims to be historical in nature. Many who deny that the Bible can be used historically because it is from human sources will turn right around and use other ancient historical documents, coming from strictly human sources, to demonstrate something historical. What this tells us is that the objection to using the Bible historically is probably not so much the historical basis for it, but the religious basis for it.
Notice how the gospel of Luke begins:
In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seem fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
Setting the issue of inspiration aside for now, this is a historical claim. Luke said he investigated everything carefully, refers to eyewitnesses, and set out to write things down in an orderly fashion so that the exact truth would be known. Any document that would make such a claim needs to be examined in a historical light. One cannot just dismiss it out of hand because he/she does not like what it says, or does not think that some things could have happened a particular way. It is historical, and it deserves that kind of attention.
F. F. Bruce made this well-known statement that deserves repetition in this light:
"The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt." (Bruce 15)
People are quick to dismiss the biblical record because it is religious in nature. It contains miracles, claims that cannot be verified scientifically and other matters that are difficult for a materialistic age to accept. So it must be fictional. However, if the Bible were not so religious, there is little doubt that it would be accepted as first-hand, eyewitness documents of the life of a man named Jesus.
By considering the gospel accounts as historical documents, we can look at the documented evidence concerning Jesus. Following is a brief sketch of this:
First, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus lived. Very few would try to deny this today. One might as well deny that George Washington lived, also.
Second, the reasons for believing that Jesus died by crucifixion are many. Several ancient historical sources refer to it. Traditions that predate the gospel accounts back it up. Even extra-biblical, non-Christian sources refer to the event. There is no reason to believe that he did not die on the cross.
Third, though it is strange to our ears, a "large array of data" confirms that Jesus was seen alive again after he had died on the cross (Habermas 108). Again, to appreciate the historical claim, read what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The thrust of this chapter is the resurrection, and the point is driven home that if the resurrection is not historical, then we are still in sin, faith is vain, and we have no hope. Even when Paul wrote this, there were eyewitnesses alive who could have backed up the claim. If it did not happen, there were plenty of opportunities from contemporaries to disprove it. But no one did. Or no one could.
What I find interesting is that people will often attempt to explain these matters through purely naturalistic causes. For example, many have argued that Jesus merely swooned on the cross, but did not die. Then, he simply woke up and was able to work his way free from the tomb. But this explanation is more incredulous than the concept of resurrection. Think about it.
The point, however, is that when people try to explain the evidence, they are admitting that the evidence is there. In other words, why would someone try to explain the body as missing from the tomb, if indeed the body was not really missing. Why try to explain it at all? Because the evidence is overwhelming, and it must be dealt with in some fashion.
So, without reservation, we appeal to the gospel accounts as first-hand, eyewitness testimonies to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. To refute this approach, one will have to demonstrate a good, objective reason why the Bible must necessarily be excluded from the realm of the historical. It has not been done in nearly two millenia.
Works Cited
Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Grand Rapids, MI: InterVarsity Press, reprint, 1987.
Habermas, Gary. Evidential Apologetics. "Five Views on Apologetics." Ed. Steven B. Cowan. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Pp. 92-121.
Doy Moyer
June 2000