Premise .3

According to Premise .2, a Divine, necessary, non-contingent, personal Being that I am calling "God" does, in fact, exist. But who is that God? What does He do? What is He like? How does He relate to us?

Christianity claims that the answers to these questions can be found in their holy document called "The Bible." Of course, in order to buy into this claim, one has to believe that the documents contained in the Bible are legitimate documents which contain truth. Unfortunately, many Christians subscribe to this document not after long, rigorous study in its validity, but because the pastor or mom and dad or friends say so. Fortunately, in doing so, they have studied and lived out the principles found in the Bible and have found them to be true, valid, and applicable. But I contend that such "blind faith" in the Bible is not necessary. I contend that the Scriptures are legitimate and factual documents that have withstood historical tests as well or better than most historical documents. It's not just a bunch of b.s. (bologna sandwich) that a few guys just made up.

Historiography is the study of history (duh). Historiographers use certain tests to determine the accuracy of the information contained in documents that claim to be historical. The three primary tests of this nature are bibliographical/geographical tests, internal attestation, and external attestation. Any major historical document that claims historical truth is subject to these three tests to see whether or not they can be trusted to be what they claim to be. The writings of Plato and Aristotle, Hamurapi's Code, Caesar, and the like all had to be run through these three tests of accuracy.

The bibliographical/geographical test looks at the breadth of a document's circulation. It looks at things such as duration of circulation, number of copies, and actual geographic area the document covers. If some dude wrote a letter to his neighbor and the neighbor just tossed it in his closet to be found hundreds of years later by some historiographers, this document is not going to be a significant source of historical evidence. However, if the neighbor read it out loud at the town meeting, copied it ten times and sent it to his friends who copied and sent it to their friends ag nosium (so that they wouldn't get ten years of bad luck for breaking the chain), the document would hold quite a bit more historical clout.

The test of internal attestation looks at the relationship between the author(s) and the events contained in the document. For example, if I wanted to write to you about the Yaks in Canada, it wouldn't hold a lot of weight because I have never seen Yaks in Canada nor do I know anything about them. If I were to write to you about the Mammoth beating Buffalo in the National Lacrosse League Champion's Cup, that would hold a little more authority because I watched that game on live television (go Mammoth!).

Finally, the test of external attestation looks at what outside sources say about the documents in question. Again, if Gary Gait and Gavin Prout both wrote that my writings concerning the NLL '06 Champions, the Colorado Mammoth, were accurate, first it would be amazing that they gave a rip about what I thought about them, but secondly and more importantly they would give me credibility in my writing.

So these are the three main historiographical tests that historical documents must face. Now lets take a look at the New Testament documents in light of them. (The New Testament is used primarily as a sample. Also, the validity of its contents will be important for Premise .4. The Old Testament has passed these test with similar results.)

Bibliographical/Geographical: There are approximately 5,000 copies of the documents of the New Testament in their entirety or near entirety. These documents were penned and copied for over 100 years and were spread over much of the known world at that time. Additionally, they have been cited by other works by church patriarchs for hundreds of years.

Internal Attestation: There is considerable evidence as to the authorship of all of the documents of the New Testament with only one exception (the book of Hebrews). In every single case, the author is at most separated by only one degree from the events they describe. That means that every author of New Testament documents were either first-hand, eye witnesses to these events (e.g. Matthew, John, Luke in parts of Acts, Peter, etc.) or they got their information directly from someone who was (e.g. Paul, Luke in the Gospel, etc.).

External Attestation: Within the New Testament, there is significant attestation to the validity of the other documents by both direct and indirect reference. Paul makes reference to events in the Gospels. Peter validates the writings of Paul. (Additionally, the authors of the New Testament significantly validate the documents of the Old Testament.) Also, outside authors and historians such as Philo and Josephus have confirmed some of the events described in the New Testament.

Now, there are objections to the New Testament in light of external attestation. Some claim that if such a major movement would have been documented on a larger and even governmental scale where there seems to be none. My response to this objection is illustrated by the following story. A few weeks ago, a friend who is an Alum of Taylor University came up to me and asked, "Did you hear what happened at Taylor?" Apparently there was a major car accident involving some of the students and faculty of Taylor U. I had not heard that news. Was I ignorant to contemporary issues and news events? Had I been living with my head in the ground? No. The fact is that Taylor U. is a relatively small school in a small town in the middle of corn fields in Indiana. Even relatively big news at Taylor does not get national, let alone world-wide press. It is not surprising that I had not heard what had happened. Galilee is, in a matter of speaking, in the middle of corn fields in Indiana. Even the biggest of news and the most major events by Galilean standards probably would not get what would have been world-wide coverage. It is not a surprise at all that the movement of "The Way" (what Christians at that time called themselves) nor any of the events leading up to the foundation thereof did not get any press time in governmental documents.

So according to these tests that are agreed upon by scholars and historiographers around the world, the documents of the New Testament contain facts and are accurate and legitimate according to their scope.

KEEP READING!!! A very important note needs to be made concerning the content of Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments). Each of these documents, just like any other document, were written with a specific purpose in a specific genre. Many argue that some of the contents of Scripture contradicts other parts and still others are untrue all together. The problem with such an assessment is that scriptures need to be understood within the scope and context of their specific genre. For example, some point to the Creation account in Genesis and say that it is inaccurate because "science" (and by "science" I mean "not really science") tells us otherwise. Well, I've got a news flash: the book of Genesis is historical narrative, not a science book. Does that mean it is wrong? No way. It is absolutely true to its purpose. The purpose of historical narrative is to tell what happened, not to convey all of the specific details as to how. The Bible must be understood according to its purpose and genre. Historical narrative is historical narrative, wise sayings are wise sayings, poetry is poetry, and so on.

That having been said, the common thread throughout the entirety of the Biblical documents, the answers to the questions at the beginning, is that God can be known and known about in all of the documents and genres. Thus, I believe that the God described in the documents of the Bible is the One true God.

There it is. Enjoy.

Premise .1: truth exists

Premise .2: a personal, non-contingent, necessary "God" exists

Premise .3: that "God" is the God described in the Bible as it is an historically accurate document

For more information, see J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: a Defense of Christianity (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, 1987), ch. 5.

Stay tuned for the fourth and final premise, "Premise .4!"