Critiquing: #095 — Did it really happen? Questions on the reliability of the Bible
December 9, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Historical scholarship — Early Christian persecution — Saints rising — Genesis authorship — Virgin birth prophecy
Episode Assessment:
 | | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | B | The episode accurately reflects contemporary scholarly debates on biblical reliability, though some historical claims could benefit from more detailed evidence and corroboration from primary sources. The discussion on the virgin birth and early Christian persecution aligns with common scholarly interpretations but may oversimplify complex issues. |
| Degree of Coherence | B+ | The episode maintains logical coherence in its arguments, presenting a clear narrative on the reliability of the Bible. The host and guest systematically address each question, providing thoughtful responses. However, the transitions between topics could be smoother to enhance overall coherence. |
| Absence of Fallacies | B- | While generally avoiding major logical fallacies, some arguments might fall into the trap of appeal to tradition or ad hominem when dismissing alternative scholarly views. The reliance on theological assumptions without sufficient empirical support may also weaken some points. |
| Degree of Evidence | C+ | The discussion references scholarly opinions and theological interpretations but lacks direct citations from primary historical sources or recent academic research. The episode would benefit from more robust evidence to support claims about the virgin birth prophecy and the historicity of early Christian persecution. |
| Degree of Testability | C | Many claims pertain to theological beliefs and historical events that are difficult to test empirically. While some arguments are based on historical evidence, others rely on interpretations that are inherently speculative and challenging to verify. |
| Rational Confidence | C+ | The confidence in the conclusions presented is reasonable, given the interpretive nature of theological and historical scholarship. However, the lack of empirical evidence for some claims reduces the overall confidence level. More rigorous substantiation would strengthen the rational confidence in the arguments presented. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
1. Degree of Evidence
“I think again that’s such an unlikely thing especially for Matthew to do because Jesus is the true king he’s not just like one of those silly pagan emperors that I don’t think this would have this story would have got about unless there was a good solid basis to it.”
The argument relies heavily on the assumption that early Christians wouldn’t fabricate stories to align Jesus with existing royal myths. This interpretation lacks concrete evidence and could be perceived as speculative. To enhance the strength of this argument, more direct evidence from primary sources or recent scholarly research supporting the uniqueness of the Christian narrative would be beneficial.
2. Degree of Testability
“It’s more that something has happened here which the early Christians probably rather horrified by when they think about it because obviously it opens them to all kinds of slurs which have been trumpeted in our own day you know that maybe Mary was raped or maybe it was just she and Joseph before they were wed, etc, etc.”
The statement reflects theological interpretations rather than empirically testable facts, limiting the testability of the claims made. Assertions about early Christian reactions to slander or interpretations of prophecy are difficult to verify without contemporary documentation. Strengthening this argument would require citing historical records or writings from the early church that directly address these issues.
3. Rational Confidence
“So it’s more mysterious than we might imagine and certainly it would be too much of an easy cheap shot to say oh the Christians just made that up because and indeed one of the arguments which I think tells in favor of the we should say virginal conception by the way rather than the virgin birth.”
The conclusion about the virginal conception is drawn from interpretations that are not universally accepted, affecting the rational confidence in this assertion. Presenting a broader range of scholarly opinions and discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective would provide a more balanced view and enhance the rational confidence in the discussion.
Formulations of Major Arguments
Argument 1: Reliability of Historical Scholarship
- Premise 1: Historical scholarship sometimes undermines the Bible.
- Premise 2: Evidence suggests some biblical events may have been exaggerated or fabricated.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the reliability of the Bible can be questioned based on historical scholarship.
Counter-Argument:
Historical scholarship often involves interpretations that can be subjective. While some evidence may suggest exaggeration, it is also possible that different historical contexts and perspectives lead to varying interpretations of the same events. For example, the timing and authorship of biblical texts can be debated, but these debates do not necessarily invalidate the religious or moral teachings within those texts. Additionally, faith-based perspectives may view these events differently, emphasizing the importance of theological and spiritual significance over empirical evidence. It is crucial to approach these discussions with an understanding of both the historical-critical method and the faith traditions that interpret these texts.
Argument 2: Early Christian Persecution
- Premise 1: Some scholars argue that early Christian persecution was exaggerated.
- Premise 2: Modern examples of persecution claims are sometimes overstated.
- Conclusion: Therefore, historical accounts of early Christian persecution might be unreliable.
Counter-Argument:
While it is true that some accounts of persecution may be exaggerated, there is substantial historical evidence supporting the existence of early Christian persecution. This evidence includes documented martyrdoms, writings from contemporary sources, and records from Roman officials. For example, the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan provides clear evidence of official Roman actions against Christians. It is crucial to differentiate between generalizations and specific, well-documented instances to avoid undermining the overall historical reality of early Christian experiences. Exaggeration in some accounts does not negate the fact that many early Christians faced real and severe persecution.
Argument 3: Virgin Birth Prophecy
- Premise 1: The prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7 may have been a mistranslation.
- Premise 2: Early Christians might have invented the virgin birth to fulfill this prophecy.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the story of the virgin birth could be a later addition rather than a historical fact.
Counter-Argument:
The interpretation of ancient texts is complex, and translations can vary. While some scholars argue that “virgin” is a mistranslation, others maintain that the term used in Isaiah can be understood to mean a young woman who is also a virgin. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, uses the word “parthenos,” which typically means virgin, reflecting the interpretation of Jewish scholars before the advent of Christianity. Additionally, the virgin birth narrative holds theological significance for many believers, emphasizing Jesus’ divine nature and fulfillment of prophecy. Dismissing it solely based on translation issues overlooks its role in the broader religious context. Faith and historical-critical methods can offer complementary rather than conflicting perspectives, and acknowledging the multifaceted nature of these discussions can lead to a more nuanced understanding.
◉ Our Prior Credulity:
The Inconsistent Epistemic Dispositions Toward Miracles
The acceptance of miracles across different religions reveals a glaring inconsistency in how we approach and evaluate extraordinary claims. Christianity, like many religions, posits that faith in its miracles is a virtue, yet it readily dismisses the miracles of other faiths as myth or superstition. This selective credulity underscores a fundamental epistemic flaw: we are predisposed to believe in the supernatural accounts of our own tradition while maintaining skepticism towards those of others.
The Christian worldview is particularly illustrative of this inconsistency. Miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the multiplication of loaves and fishes are accepted as historical facts by believers. Yet, when confronted with the miraculous claims of Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, the same believers often demand empirical evidence or dismiss these claims outright. This double standard is not unique to Christianity but is a pervasive issue in religious thought.
To test the consistency of one’s epistemological stance towards miracles, it is instructive to examine the miracle claims of various religions. Below is a table listing primary miracle claims from several major world religions. By methodologically considering these claims with the same initial credulity afforded to one’s own religious texts, one can identify potential biases and inconsistencies.
| Religion | Primary Miracle Claims |
|---|---|
| Christianity | Resurrection of Jesus, Virgin Birth, Healing Miracles |
| Islam | Splitting of the Moon, Ascension to Heaven (Miraj), Quran as a miracle |
| Hinduism | Krishna’s Lifting of Govardhan Hill, Miracles of Sai Baba |
| Buddhism | Miracles of Buddha (e.g., walking on water, multiplying food) |
| Sikhism | Miracles of Guru Nanak (e.g., making the blind see) |
| Judaism | Parting of the Red Sea, Ten Plagues of Egypt |
| Mormonism | Translation of the Golden Plates, Visions of Joseph Smith |
| Baha’i Faith | Miracles of Baha’u’llah (e.g., healing the sick, predicting events) |
The inconsistent epistemic dispositions towards miracles are evident when one religion’s miraculous claims are scrutinized while another’s are accepted without question. This inconsistency undermines the very notion of faith as a reliable pathway to truth. If faith is used to justify belief in one’s own miracles, it should equally justify belief in the miracles of other religions. Conversely, if skepticism is applied to the miracles of other faiths, it should also be applied to one’s own.
The selective credulity towards miracles not only highlights the subjectivity of religious belief but also reveals an underlying cultural bias. Miracles that align with local beliefs and traditions are more readily accepted, whereas those that seem foreign or culturally distant are met with deeper suspicion. This phenomenon suggests that the acceptance of miracles is less about the evidence supporting them and more about cultural and psychological comfort.
The polemical stance against the notion of faith, therefore, is rooted in the observation that faith is often used inconsistently to support one’s pre-existing beliefs while rejecting others. This selective application of faith erodes its credibility as a universal tool for discerning truth. For a truly consistent and rational approach to miracles, one must either accept all miracle claims with equal credulity or subject them all to the same level of skepticism and empirical scrutiny.
Thank you for reading. We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and insights are valuable to this ongoing conversation.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment