caleb_a_c

I wanted to start this thread because since I've been on this board and viewed posts by it's various members, I have noticed an remarkable double standard when criticizing the Bible versus any other ancient texts. I have been asking myself, "Why do so many intelligent individuals choose to ignore proven facts about the Bible and discredit all of them based on one supposed fault that they find or hear about?" I think that the critical thinker should weigh the evidence on both sides of an argument fairly and without bias, then judge for themself based on all that evidence. It seems like critical thinking is sort of thrown out the window by most people when confronted with the Bible.

I'm starting this thread because I'm trying to understand why.

After doing some research I found out that a quote I read from a fairly well known secular philosopher, Will Durant, who said "if the tests applied to New Testament books were applied to ancient writings, none of them would be considered true." I found that to be a profound statement that is suprisingly true considering all of the evidence, secular and christian, for the Bible's historical authenticity and accuracy. Especially when presented with the Bible's structure, survival, integration, historical veracity, archaeological evidence, scientific insights, outside corroborating records, and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. From all the research I have done, since joining this board, about science, evolution, and biblical history, I wonder at why the Bible is considered by so many to be mythical garbage. It seems like many criticize, but few analyze.

My questions is; why is the standard to which the Bible is held in proof of it's validity, not the same as the standard for all other ancient literature? From all I know and have read I think I know why, but I'd like to hear from people here.

As a quick example of ancient text comparison, below I have quoted a man named Randall Niles, whose website can be viewed here: http://www.allaboutthejourney.org

"In addition to the nine New Testament authors who wrote about Jesus in separate accounts, I found at least twenty additional early Christian authors, four heretical writings, and seven non-Christian sources that make explicit mention of Jesus in their writings within 150 years of his life. This amounts to a minimum of 40 authors, all of whom explicitly mention Jesus and the expansion of a spiritual movement in his name. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime. Scholars are only aware of ten sources that mention Emperor Tiberius within 150 years of his life, including Luke, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Paterculus."

I think that if the Bible is to be criticized with such un-merciful ferocity, then to be fair, that same ferocity should be used to criticize all questionable ancient writings.


[Caleb]

gregor

You're right, of course, because Pliny was inspired by God who guided his very hands in writing, and the failure to believe Pliny will damn you to hell for eternity. That's why we should treat them the same. . .

Chris Weimer

Caleb,

You're really going to have to be more specific. There are so many here with differing opinions. Of course many here apply a double standard to the Bible, my opinion being that they hold a prejudice against Christianity. However, in regards of textual criticism, you'd be hard pressed to find any text that has not had done many alterations and emendations.

But then again, nothing you mentioned seemed to deal with textual criticism at all. So please clarify.

Chris

Gooch's dad

I actually agree with caleb here, to some extent. I find that Jesus Mythers have a bizarre standard of historical inquiry, to the extent that they demand that we have a first-hand eyewitness account to determine whether a particular historical figure existed. That's just completely ad hoc.

But I also find that the vast majority of Christians have another kind of double standard, which is far more blatant--they choose to believe the supernatural claims in one particular set of ancient writings, by anonymous authors, over the supernatural claims of all other ancient writings. And there are a great many such supernatural claims.

After all, Origen challenged Celsus regarding the resurrection of Jesus by saying that pagans believed in a lot of other resurrections, but were unwilling to believe in Jesus' resurrection.

Why don't Christians believe in any of those other ancient stories of resurrections? Because of a clear double standard, that's why.

Malachi151

Ever hear the phrase "Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence"?

You see, no one is claiming that the secular sources are the infallible word of "God".

No one is claiming that they are "perfect", or that they hold any "special truth".

We all KNOW that the other texts have many false statements in them, many things that don't pan out, many backward ideas, but that's not a problem, no one cares that we admit those things.

We don't fundamentally base our view of the world on these texts, we use these texts as CLUES to tell us about the world at the time that they were written.

We CAN use the Biblical texts IN TEH EXACT SAME WAY, and *I* contend that this is really a MUCH MORE respectful way to view Biblical texts, instead of insulting ourselves, humanity in general, and even the people who wrote them, by holding these texts to an absurd standard and, INDEED, believing that these texts DO NOT TELL US ABOUT THEM, but that they are rather GOD SPEAKING TO US NOW.

You see, when you hold the Biblical texts as sacred, they cease to tell you about the people who wrote them, they cease to enrich our understanding of the development of man, they cease to ALLOW us to learn FROM the texts, and instead they become timeless monolyths that we are supposed to be subserviant to, they neither inform out view of the past, of humanity, or of our journey.

I contend that the humanization of the Biblical texts is far more respectful of them, far more enriching, and for more truthful, than holding these texts out as sacred words of "God".

I can respect these texts as pieces of history and culture, I cannot respect these texts, or sympathise with their writers, as sacred doctrines.

S.C.Carlson

Can we rename the title of this thread to something like "Double standard in historical criticism: The Bible"? Nothing in the original post has anything to do with textual criticism, which is the question of establishing what the original words of the text are, regardless of their historical value or accuracy.

Blui

Its not so much a double standard as it is more attention given to probably the most influencial book in recorded (or recently recorded) history.

openlyatheist

And this quote by Randall spectacularly misses the point and actually demonstrates the double standard of apologists.

Primarily, this analysis shows a complete disregard for content. The reason I can believe in an Emperor Tiberius is not simply because of "ten sources", (I notice Niles produces names for the Tiberius sources but not the Jesus sources), but because A) I have plenty of evidence that there were Roman Emperors, and B) I have plenty of evidence there are regular human beings. Put them together and I have plenty reasons to believe this Emperor, a regular human being, existed without compromising my view of reality. Show me a story about Tiberius walking on water and coming back from the dead and I will damn sure ask for further proof. Lots of it.

Furthermore, as has already been said on this thread, it is not a lack of "un-merciful ferocity" toward other "questionable ancient writings" on the part of skeptics that betrays a double standard. Instead, skeptics rightly accept all "questionable ancient writings" as merely that: questionable ancient writings. Much of ancient history is never agreed upon by every member of a field. This stands in contrast to the Christian double standard that a collection of questionable ancient writings is actually the foundation of civilization, morality, and the template for the living of all life.

Any discussion of any ancient writing, from this site to your local college facutly break room, will yeild disagreements between researchers. It is only when religion steps in, using questionable ancient writings to force an agenda upon the populace, such as Christians are wont to do, that higher standards of criticism should be applied.

Eldarion Lathria

For me, it's the extraordinary claims. I don't believe Emperor Vespasian cured the blind and the lame, although the secular historian Suetonius said he did. I don't believe the mystic Appolonius of Tyana vanished from in front of Emperor Nero, although his biographer Philostratos said he did. Someone borrowed the name of the astronomer Kallimachos to write a Life of Alexander the Great sending the king off to China, where he never went.

Eldarion Lathria

Vorkosigan

Which mythers make that demand?

Vorkosigan