This is an INCREDIBLY common line of reasoning in our society today. To my mind, though, there are two fundamental issues that have to be addressed before we can take a meaningful stab at answering the heart of this assertion:
1) While it's absolutely true that God used human authors, their languages, vocabulary, and styles in recording the message of scripture for us - it does not logically follow from this that the words of scripture are of solely human origin in a similar way to the existence of of musicians, playing with their own styles, techniques, and backgrounds in a symphony would not be an argument against the existence of a composer.
2) This overlooks the fact that the Bible was not written in a vacuum. It was not something that a monk in the 1200's stumbled upon.
- 2a) The history of archaeology is littered with examples of times when "the skeptics proved the Bible wrong" only to discover on further investigation that their findings actually supported the scriptural record. The Tel Dan Inscription is one such example that will have to suffice. Modern researches believed they were secure in consigning Kind David (the second king of Israel from whom the Christ was to descend) to the dust bin of mythology, only to discover an official inscription on a 9th century B.C. stone where an Aramaen king boasts of defeating the "king of the House of David."
- 2b) We have archaeological evidence from the dead sea scrolls and other manuscripts going back to around 200 B.C. These allow us to say with a high degree of confidence that the text of scripture we have today is incredibly faithful to the source materials. This high textual fidelity calls into question the idea that any of its claims could have survived through the ages if its descriptions of events were wildly off the mark or exaggerated. These aren't stories that happened "once upon a time" after all, they claim to have happened in specific places at specific times to specific people. Given this they are highly falsifiable claims, what I mean by this is that Moses can't get away with telling an Egyptian that he covered the whole land of Egypt with a shroud of darkness for three days last week unless he actually did.
Now, I agree; none of this proves that the Bible is true. Yes, it's clearly old, and yes, it appears to be a faithful record, but just because it's the same record of events today as it was a long time ago doesn't mean that it's the word of God, right? In the spirit of the original question: couldn't the Bible's explanation for these phenomena be wildly flawed even if it's reporting on the events themselves is accurate? Maybe not science fiction, but something more along the lines of historical fiction, maybe?
Up to this point (considering only what we've looked at so far), yes, maybe; but that's not all the Bible has to offer. The context we've just established also servers to form an important ground work from an authority perspective. When we look at the prophecies of the Bible, again and again we see things spelled out in great detail before they happen; often LONG before they happen. King Cyrus for example is mentioned by name and his interactions with the Jews are laid out in the book of Isaiah a couple hundred years before he was even born. Similarly, the prophecy against Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzer to scrape the city down to the bare rock is fulfilled in exact detail by Alexander the Great when he scraped the city into the sea to form a causeway out to their fortress island. Finally, David's prophecy in Psalm 22:1-18 (written several hundred years before crucifixion was invented) precisely corresponds to the suffering and death of Jesus 1,000 years later down to the mocking words of the crowd and the method the soldiers would use to gamble over his clothing.
Comparing the prophecies of scripture to any other source that claims to have predicted the future before it happened yields a pretty clear distinction. Somehow the scriptures know time and time again what the future holds; far more often than any human (or even group of humans) could hope to on their own. This really shouldn't surprise bible believing Christians though - God laid out the rule to discern whether or not someone is authentically speaking for Him all the way back in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 after all, "... How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
Comments
Re: Tyre. God states that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer, sack and completely destroy Tyre and specifically that Tyre's land would never be built on again. This did not happen. After a long siege, Tyre compromised with Nebuchadnezzar and accepted his authority without being destroyed. Why Mr McCabe brings Alexander into the mix is a mystery because he (Alexander) isn't mentioned in Ezekiel at all. Although Alexander did conquer and raze Tyre, the city still exists, refuting the prophecy that "...though Tyre be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again".
Re: Cyrus. Isaiah is believed to pre-date Cyrus by about 120 years (not the "couple of hundred" claimed by Mr McCabe). Passages in later chapters of Isaiah are believed to have been added by another author (i.e. interpolated) toward the end of the Babylonian exile (cont)
You said "You need to come up with a plausible explanation for how it could happen so frequently over such varied time scales in the midst (more often than not) of a significant population that would like nothing better than to disprove/ignore it and yet never made such an argument as you put forward" (cont)
Again, I'm not sure who would make up the "significant population" whom you claim would like to disprove it. Over the course of history, both pre-and post-modern, most people have been religious believers of one stripe or another who would hardly have a vested interest in disproving scripture (cont)
Mr McCabe's point that "...the text of scripture we have today is incredibly faithful to the source material" is irrelevant, since faithful transmission of a story has no bearing on the veracity of the original story.
On a more general note, you're doubtless aware that it is claimed that there are many prophecies in the Q'uran. Is this evidence for the claims of Islam?
In Luke 24:46, Jesus is alleged to have said "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day". That the resurrection was prophesied was claimed by Paul also in 1 Cor 15:3-4 "...he rose again on the third day according to the scriptures". There is no OT passage that made this alleged third day prediction - it just doesn't exist.
If I have misquoted you in any way, I sincerely apologise. Please point out where you did not say the things I claim you said. I am very happy to be corrected.
My two cents...
Regarding John 7:38, not every translation has that text in quotes (KJV, for example). Generally, many Christians (such as myself) consider the original scriptures to be inerrant, but not necessarily any particular translation of them. Without quotes, it can be read as a generic reference to a number of concepts, such as explained here:
https://www.bibleref.com/John/7/John-7-38.html
Alternatively, (I am not a Greek scholar, but...) the Greek word "eipon", here translated "said," can also be rendered "commanded," like it is in Matthew 4:3.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2036&t=NKJV
It could thus read like so:
"He who believes in Me as the Scripture commanded, from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water."
[continued]
In this reading, Jesus is not referencing scripture with the second part of His statement at all, but making a brand-new promise as to what will happen to anyone who believes in Him (as the scriptures tell them to). Hope that made sense.
Regarding Luke 24:46, etc, Israel is understood to be a type (prefigure, picture, image, metaphor) of Christ (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1). Conversely, Christ also represents (is the federal head of) spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28-29; 5:17). In both of these senses, Hosea 6:1-2 is understood to be a fairly explicit description of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection after three days.
Additionally, Jesus Himself identifies the experiences of Jonah as being a type of His own death and resurrection in Matthew 12:40 (Jonah 1:17).
I am grateful. With reference to John 7:38, none of the verses quoted in the link that you provided has the construction that you suggest, nor do they in the link below.
https://biblehub.com/john/7-38.htm
Indeed, in the other link that you provided, it notes that "eipon" is used to mean "say" or "speak" a total of 916 times, compared with a mere 8 times to mean "command".
Therefore, with all due respect, there is no good reason for me to think that your construction is the "correct" one, nor any reason to change my mind about this being an error in the bible whereby the author of John references scripture that doesn't exist (cont)
If Luke and Matthew had not imaginatively applied these verses from Hosea to Jesus and his life, no-one would have thought they referred to anything but the Israelite exodus. Nor do I have any good reason to think otherwise, all things considered.
Regarding John 7:38, The "accepted" answer here is a different way of reading it that also seems plausible to me (me, again, not being a Greek scholar):
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/302/where-is-the-citation-of-john-738-taken-from
John 7:39, telling us that the water represents the Spirit (which comes from Christ to believers), seems to provide additional support for this reading.
You're entitled to your view of course but I respectfully disagree. I reject the claims of prophecy in the bible as spurious and implausible. The defence of such claims is (again with respect) far-fetched and unconvincing. For the same reason I also (and I suspect that you too) reject the claims of prophecy in the Q'uran as spurious and implausible and the defence of these by Islamic scholars as far-fetched.
The point being that none of the Pharisees contested the facts of what happened on the cross (though obviously they disagreed with the later resurrection); no one claimed at the time that He had really died. Similarly, as mentioned in the article, Egypt would have been quick to assail a band of nomads claiming their God had somehow "humbled" the mighty Pharaoh had the report of the Exodus not been true and they'd had the ability to do so.
Thank you for that interesting response. It seems to be based on the idea that the gospels are accurate accounts of historical reality. Unfortunately, I don't have any good reason to think that they are, and lots of reasons to think that they aren't.
The only sources that indicate that Psalm 22 was fulfilled are the gospels. There are no other sources.
Similarly, you claim that "...none of the Pharisees contested the facts of what happened on the cross". Certainly...according to the gospels, but no-one else (cont.)
It certainly seems to me that the gospel authors were not people who were overly worried about getting their facts straight, nor does it seem that they were concerned about other people being "quick to assail" their claims and finding them wanting.
Sorry to be on here so infrequently, but I have to say I think your objections to the historicity of Matthew 27 are pretty straight forward to answer. As far as the curtain being torn in two, this is the curtain between the holy of holies and the central area of the temple. If I remember correctly, there were several divisions within the temple and only the priests could enter the area adjoining the holy of holies and therefore wouldn't have been subject to general investigation. Indeed, given the attitude we see the Pharisees and other religious officials display in passages like Mark 3:1-6 and John 9:1-34 it's telling that the intact cloth WASN'T taken down and presented if it had not in fact been torn. (Cont.)
If anything, the inclusion of this 'evidence' had it not been true would have only served to invalidate the other claims the writers were making. That's my central point: If the gospels were written at approximately the time they claim to be and what we have is an accurate representation of what they contained, then why don't we have evidence of things like this being contested at the time? Anyone in Jerusalem who read this would have immediately known whether or not these more public events happened, but we have no record of such objections before essentially modern times. How can you account for the early growth of the church under the conditions you've outlined? (Cont. again)
So, while we don't have supplementary reports of this event that's perhaps not surprising. (Cont.)
Where we differ is that my understanding of the events explains the documented growth of the early church in the years immediately following the crucifixion and resurrection. Your view of the historicity of the surrounding facts presented in the gospels would have lead to widespread dismissal in the early years after the initial events until a suitable amount of time had allowed the facts to recede from living memory. This just doesn't fit what we see. In your view the apostles would have known that what they were selling was bunk and died (usually tortuously) for it anyway. How can you explain that from your perspective?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the veil was in fact torn but the Pharisees covered it up, the author of Matthew still found out about it somehow, didn't he? Does it seem plausible that he was the only person to have done so? No, it doesn't. Even the other Gospel writers don't mention it, which is unlikely and implausible given that they were (allegedly) eyewitnesses "on the ground", and given their apparent in-depth awareness of the internecine workings of the temple and the Pharisees, as you have pointed out in the passages from Mark and Luke.
With respect, the size of the earthquake, and the fact that there are not "multiple" attestations to it, are irrelevant. The fact that there is not one single mention of it by any other historian, chronicler, diarist, public or private person, is highly relevant, and gives me no good reason to believe that it actually happened (cont.)
I do not think that the absence of evidence always and in every case implies evidence of absence. However, in this case the silence is thunderous. Given the dramatic nature of the events, and the claim that the gospel writers (all of them) were eyewitnesses at the time of Jesus' alleged life, ministry and death, and given that Jerusalem was a populous city by the standards of the time, it is completely implausible that there is not one single mention of these events by anyone other than Matthew...at all. Not a single one. Not even a teeny tiny bit (cont.)
One would reasonably think that, had this and other fantastical stories about Muhammed not been true, it would have led to "widespread dismissal". Yet these stories were not dismissed. Despite the fact that this story could be easily disproved, many people believed it, and continue to believe it. All that that shows is that people believe all sorts of things, often for no very good reason (cont.)
However, if the story of al-Isra and other stories about Muhammed aren't true, how the to explain the spectacular growth of Islam, particularly when both Muhammed and his followers presumably would have known that what they were selling was bunk and that they could die for believing it? How can you explain that from your perspective? (cont.)
If you really want to understand my perspective with regards to the Gospels and the Bible in general, examine your own reasons for not believing the fantastical stories about Muhammed and indeed stories about any other prophet or god(s)
Props for keeping up with this thread, you're doing better than I am!
To address what you've said though: I'm not too concerned about the lack of some details in other gospels given that they were directed to different audiences. For the same reason I'm not shocked when I see details in them that aren't in Matthew. In this case, and the tearing of the temple veil wouldn't have had any relevant meaning or significance to non-Jewish readers and the resurrection of the dead would have been an active stumbling block to them without contributing anything to the overall message (as opposed to Christ's resurrection which WAS included in all versions).
This may be a point of history I just need correction on, but my impression is that the first few hundred years of Islamic history are VERY different from the first few years of Christian history. (Cont.)
My point being that the personal risk factor of professing the two beliefs weren't really comparable which severely limits the power of your argument.
It just so happens that I have some free time on my hands right about now!
Maybe it would help clarify things if I summed up our views in two scenarios.
Scenario 1 - none of Matt 27:51-53 happened. Matthew made it all up, much as Muhammed made up the story of the flying horse.
Scenario 2 - everything in Matt 27:51-53 happened. But to accept your explanation for the fact that not a single other person mentioned these dramatic and notable events, one also has to accept a number of claims, including:
(i) The Pharisees covered up the veil of the temple tearing, but the author of Matthew somehow found out about it and wrote about it. Mark, Luke and John may have known about it but if they did, they didn't think it important enough to mention. Others may have known about it but didn't think it important enough to mention, or did write about it but their accounts didn't survive (cont.)
(ii) The earthquake happened but only the author of Matthew wrote about it. Mark, Luke and John may have known about it but didn't think it important enough to mention. Others may have known about it but didn't think it important enough to mention, or their accounts did not survive (cont.)
(Again, I think your point that "...the resurrection of the dead would have been an active stumbling block to them without contributing anything to the overall message" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given that the overall message of the Gospels is in fact the offer of resurrection to eternal life through Jesus. It certainly wasn't a stumbling block for John in telling the story of Lazarus, or for Matthew, Mark AND Luke in telling of Jairus' daughter) (cont.)
Scenario 1, on the other hand, is a perfectly credible explanation which covers all the facts and therefore satisfies Occam's razor. I therefore have no good reason to accept as true the story in Matthew 27:51-53 (cont.)
If, on the other hand, it is *not* the case that the willingness of followers of Muhammed to die for Allah is testimony to the truth of the claims of Islam, then it can't be for Christianity either. That's my point.
I think you're oversimplifying your scenario. You have to explain why a body was not produced if the gospel accounts are not correct. You also have to explain how the tomb came to be empty that morning despite Roman guards being posted around it. And, regardless of what happened in terms of commitment among convinced believers in respective religions centuries later, you also have to explain why the disciples (who would have KNOWN DEFINITIVELY that they were dying for a lie) would give their lives freely.
With respect, your apparent assumption that the Gospels are reliable, accurate historical accounts is not warranted. Given that there is zero outside attestation of the events in the Gospels, I do not have any good reason to think that they are reliable, accurate historical accounts.
It still remains for you to credibly explain why the incredible story in Matt 27:51-53 does not have a single independent corroborating witness (nor do any of the other fantastical stories in the Gospels, for that matter). You have tried to explain away this inconvenient fact but (again, with respect) that is a long way from actually explaining it. I have no good reason to accept as credible any of the scenarios that you postulated.