![]() The Nazis did a good job of covering things up. If you disregard all testimony, and only seek to prove it through the examination of records independent of testimony, you may be led to believe, as some have, that the tragic extermination of millions of Jews never occurred. But this attitude becomes problematic when you look at examples like The Holocaust. Many historians would argue that history and testimony are two different things: History is the study of what happened by examining primary sources testimony is the practice of telling stories based on what you think you saw. In his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Bauckham’s key example to help us understand the issue here is the eyewitness testimony of the Holocaust. In our study with our skeptic friend, we began to talk about why the Bible is mistrusted as a source of history. ![]() It seems legit that we believe what we see in the Bible not because it said so, but because “the historian has independently verified it.” To an extent, this is understandable, but when we refuse to treat the Gospels as historical documents themselves, we rob them of their legitimacy as witness reporting. ![]() ![]() What is the difference between what the Bible says about Jesus (testimony carried on), and what history can tell us (history outside of the Bible)? It is claimed that when true scholars subject the Gospels to objective scrutiny, much doubt is cast on their storytelling. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |