Maranatha:
Do you believe in the WWII Holocaust (Shoah)? Do you believe we landed a man on the moon?
First of all, what I believe is not the point. The historical consensus is the point. Neither in my own mind nor in the consensus of historians is there any doubt about the two events you mentioned. There is no reasonable doubt about the existence of Jesus and the fact he was crucified either (though a little more than for the two events you cite). But when it comes to many of the specific narratives of the NT, there is far more doubt among historians–and for good reason.
The Shoah and the moon landing have multiple independent eyewitness attestations–almost too many to count. The events of Jesus’ life have no attestations that are generally accepted as being by eyewitnesses. We have Paul’s brief references, which don’t claim to belong to an eyewitness but do cite a number of eyewitnesses some of whom are allegedly living. This is pretty much universally agreed to be the earliest reference to Jesus extant. Then we have Mark’s account, which traditionally is regarded as being a second-hand account derived from Peter–of course most modern scholars would doubt even this. The vast majority of scholars think that Matthew came after Mark and used his account, which means that Matthew is not an eyewitness. (If one takes the minority position that Matthew was written first, there’s a bit more basis for seeing him as an eyewitness.) Luke is clearly not an eyewitness and uses Mark and probably Matthew. John claims to be based on an eyewitness account but many, probably most scholars would doubt this, though there seems to be a growing consensus that John does preserve some historical material.
Non-Christian sources show no signs of being independent of the Christian accounts, with the possible exception of Josephus. But even a conservative scholar like F.F. Bruce admits that Josephus’s account has been interpolated by Christians.
I’m not as skeptical as this summary makes me sound. I’m simply repeating what most mainstream NT scholars in the academic guild would say. There’s certainly no comparison between the sources for Jesus’ life and the vast quantity of documentation for the modern events to which you refer.
Should we use the same standard of proof for the events in Palestine in the first century, as we use for all other history?
As believers, no. We are quite justified in placing more credence in the NT accounts than we would place in other accounts. But the argument assumes a non-believing (or rather neutral) position to start.
I know that’s not what you meant. You’re suggesting that secular scholars are more skeptical about the NT events than about other events–and in many cases that’s true. But in that case what account is one to use to base this alleged proof of the Bible’s “inerrancy”? Clearly one can’t simply use Christian sources, because that presupposes from the start what one sets out to prove. For all their faults, one must rely on the consensus of credentialed scholars, believing and nonbelieving. There is no alternative that I can see (if one is trying to make an argument that doesn’t rest on Christian faith to start with).
Furthermore, there is good reason to be more skeptical of NT accounts than of many other events. Most modern people, when reading pagan accounts that include the miraculous (such as stories of portents which abound in Greek and Roman history), dismiss the miraculous element insofar as it can’t be rationalized. Generally historians who include the miraculous are treated as automatically less reliable than those who always find a natural explanation for everything (this is one of the grounds on which Herodotus is usually considered inferior to Thucydides). So it’s not necessarily anti-Christian bias that leads secular historians to dismiss the NT accounts–which abound in miracles.
Necessarily, an account that challenges our view of the world must meet a higher standard of proof than one that confirms it. A narrative describing a great general who led armies to conquer territory does not say anything that we don’t find in many other accounts throughout history–though of course the specifics are different. But an account of a virgin birth or a resurrection from the dead challenges our normal assumptions about the sort of things that happen. It’s quite right for secular people to be somewhat more skeptical of such accounts. I would be too if I did not already accept the truth of Christianity. Wouldn’t you? If you were studying Indian history, would you really treat accounts of the miraculous birth of the Buddha in the same way you’d treat accounts of some Indian king who conquered territory?
Edwin
##