Critiquing: What’s the Best Evidence for the Reliability of the Old Testament?

May 23, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Old Testament Reliability — Historical Evidence — Textual Integrity — Archaeological Corroboration — Minimalist School

---

Introduction

The content in the PDF, titled “What’s the Best Evidence for the Reliability of the Old Testament?”, addresses questions about the historical and textual reliability of the Old Testament. This critique will evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments presented, highlight any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, and suggest methods to test the alleged promises of God.

Logical Coherence and Inconsistencies

The central argument in the content is that the Old Testament is reliable both historically and textually. Several points need scrutiny for logical coherence:

Misrepresentation of Historical Standards:

The content emphasizes differences in historical standards over time to excuse potential inaccuracies in the Old Testament:

“The standards for history in the past were different from the standards of history in the present. You have to keep those in mind when you’re trying to assess what actually took place and what the writers are trying to communicate.”

This could be seen as a way to dismiss inconsistencies or inaccuracies rather than addressing them directly. Modern historical methods rely on evidence and consistency, and while standards may differ, factual accuracy remains crucial.

Overstating Textual Integrity:

The content asserts the textual integrity of the Old Testament by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic Text:

“They were able to discover the incredible similarity and closeness between those texts… there has not been a massive amount of change in these texts.”

While this similarity is notable, it does not account for all variations and potential biases introduced through centuries of transcription and translation. The assertion that there has been no “massive amount of change” should be supported with more detailed comparative analysis.

Selective Use of Archaeological Evidence:

The content highlights archaeological finds that corroborate the Old Testament while ignoring contradictory evidence:

“So many things archaeologically have affirmed details of the ancient record of the Hebrews.”

This selective use of evidence presents a biased view. It is important to consider all archaeological findings, including those that do not support the Old Testament narrative, to provide a balanced perspective.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are evident in the content:

Confirmation Bias:

The content selectively interprets evidence to support the reliability of the Old Testament, emphasizing corroborative findings while downplaying or ignoring contradictory evidence.

Straw Man Fallacy:

The content addresses a simplified version of opposing views, suggesting that skepticism is based solely on a lack of corroboration:

“There is a school of thought… called the minimalist school. According to the minimalist school, the biblical record counts as nothing unless corroborated by something else.”

This misrepresents the nuanced arguments of scholars who question the Old Testament’s reliability, reducing their critiques to an easily dismissed stance.

Appeal to Authority:

The content frequently references authoritative sources and discoveries without providing detailed analysis or evidence:

“Historians characteristically take these records on face value and trust them unless they have really good reason not to.”

Relying on authority without presenting the underlying evidence weakens the argument.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims in the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

“The world is literate principally because of Christian missionaries.”

“Historians characteristically take these records on face value and trust them unless they have really good reason not to.”

“There has not been a massive amount of change in these texts.”

These claims are presented without detailed reasoning or evidence, relying instead on rhetorical assertions.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content should provide evidence and reasoning to substantiate its claims. In logical argumentation, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Therefore, the content should offer more than assertions; it should present evidence from historical, archaeological, and textual analysis to support its conclusions.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To evaluate any alleged promises of God, one could employ the following methods:

Empirical Observation:

Observing and recording instances where specific promises or predictions are claimed to be fulfilled. Analyzing these occurrences for consistency, specificity, and statistical significance can provide insights.

Historical Analysis:

Investigating historical records to verify the accuracy of events described in religious texts. Cross-referencing these records with independent sources can help establish the reliability of the promises.

Philosophical Inquiry:

Engaging in philosophical analysis to explore the logical coherence of the promises. This includes examining the underlying assumptions and implications of the promises in the broader context of religious and ethical thought.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This principle, often referred to as epistemic proportionality, ensures that beliefs are held with an appropriate level of certainty based on the strength of the evidence:

Evidence-Based Belief:

Evaluating the strength and reliability of the evidence before forming a belief. Strong, consistent evidence should lead to a higher degree of belief, while weak or contradictory evidence should result in lower confidence.

Critical Examination:

Continuously re-evaluating beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments. This process involves remaining open to revising beliefs when presented with compelling evidence that challenges existing views.

Avoiding Overconfidence:

Recognizing the limitations of one’s knowledge and avoiding overconfidence in beliefs that are not strongly supported by evidence. This humility in belief formation is essential for logical coherence and intellectual honesty.

---

In conclusion, while the content aims to provide a coherent argument for the reliability of the Old Testament, it exhibits several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more balanced approach would involve engaging with opposing interpretations, providing evidence to support claims, and aligning beliefs with the available evidence. For further discussion and a deeper dive into these arguments, feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section.