Fact? or Fantasy?

Throughout the discourse of this particular course, I have felt a remarkable emphasis put on the ‘fantastical’ principles of Christianity. During regular course discussion, and within the assigned literature (Fantasyland) the idea of Christianity being a religion for fools has been conveyed frequently. Not explicitly is such language used but oftentimes it is subtleties and slight remarks that present a view that Christianity, and the philosophy it presents are not based in facts. During the course I have learned that the beliefs presented in class are thoroughly against Christianity and its defining principles as an ideology. It has been argued that the Bible has no basis in fact and that ultimately, Christianity is a fantastical view of the world. 

The plight of many philosophers is to explain the world, to find a basis for their own belief systems that reflects how they see the world. If one of these philosophers were to be disproved then part of their message or all of it would have to be discredited. What if we approached the Bible the same way? The fundamental pillar of Christianity, the basis for which the entire religion is built on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even Paul, one of the most prolific New Testament authors wrote, 

“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” - 1 Corinthians 15:14. 

So let’s pick this apart shall we? Is there historical evidence outside of the Bible that the man Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament existed? Actually, Yes. 

Let’s take a look at one piece of evidence from the time period in question. A Roman Historian who’s name is Tacitus wrote in his last work entitled Annals, 

“The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” 

Tacitus obviously mistook Jesus’ being called ‘Christ’ as his actual name. This account, in a story based mostly on Nero, corroborates the accounts of Jesus’ conviction in the Gospels. This is just one of many accounts outside of the New Testament that corroborate the ‘story’ the disciples, or eyewitnesses, told. Another more well known source for New Testament comparison is the Quran, which not only acknowledges Jesus as a person, but also acknowledges his miracles; though it doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as the son of God. I encourage you to continue this research on your own, should you doubt my source. So, was Jesus from the New Testament a man that actually existed? Yes. Facts, or fantasy?

Secondly, if the Bible isn’t reliable as a historical document then everything falls apart. I’ve heard people claim that the Bible is unreliable, due to it being written by a bunch of ‘old men’ who were ‘crazy’. Let us pick this apart shall we? Since this class relies on the teachings of many philosophers let us make a comparison, 

“The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20,” (Boa).

Even so, one of Tacitus’ writing corroborates the New Testament. Even those who have original documents ranging one to twenty are considered historically accurate. So why is there such doubt in the historical accuracy of the scriptures? Because, respectfully, people don’t want to accept the fact that the Bible is a reliable historical source with places, and people that did exist and is backed by a variety of historical evidence. One of the other arguments I have heard to discredit the historical accuracy of the scriptures, is that there are so many translations, surely the truth was lost in it. To the contrary, 

“Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism,” (Boa).

Most of the textual differences are simply spelling and word order. For some, this immediately discredits the scriptures, if that is the case I encourage you to stop reading now…

If you’re open to new information please continue reading. So we have come to the conclusion that Jesus as a man from the New Testament actually existed, secondly, we know that the historical reliability of the Bible is backed up by statistics. The next point is the one that really makes the impact, factually. The evidence I have provided already is enough to convince me. Are you less easily swayed? I encourage you to look into my statements yourself and check my sources. Brace yourself, The next installment is on the resurrection. Until then, God bless. 

Works Consulted:

I. Boa, Kenneth. “How Accurate Is the Bible?” Bible.org, bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible.

II. “Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the Historicity of the Bible.” Christian Research Institute, www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/.

III. “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible.” Biblical Archaeology Society, 11 Mar. 2018, www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/.

IV. Tacitus, Cornelius, and Rhiannon Ash. Annals. Cambridge University Press, 2018.