Evidence for the afterlife

Jesus spoke to the people in parables. His disciples asked, why? – and Jesus's response was that the disciples 'are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not' (Matthew 13:11). These were not myths, but were earthly stories with a heavenly meaning that were meant to conceal some things from unbelievers.

How can one discern whether the Bible contains once-upon-a-time fairy tales like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland – or reliable history?

We know from reading the 66 books of the Bible that they refer to leaders from secular history whose existence and actions can be checked out through other sources. These luminaries include Cyrus, King of Persia (539-530 BC), Artaxerxes I (464-423 BC), and Darius III (336-331 BC). The edict of Cyrus, circulated in 538 BC 'has been shown to be substantially historical as a result of modern archaeological discoveries, and constitutes one of the earliest acts of Cyrus after establishing the Persian empire' (Harrison 1969:193). See the biblical record in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23.

As for the New Testament, here are other prominent historical figures who can be verified by outside sources: King Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12), Agrippa II (Acts 26), Caesar Augustus (Mark 12:17; Luke 2:1-52) Pontius Pilate (see Matt 27:19; Pilate stone), and Emperor Nero.

Leading ancient historian and historical Jesus scholar, the Australian Dr Paul Barnett, rejects the mythological Bible for one which locates Jesus by discovering 'text-based historical enquiry: sociological analysis, though useful, has significant limitations'. Barnett, who taught ancient history at Macquarie University, considers that 'the gospels are self-consciously historical, [so] a better way to begin to investigate Jesus is with the gratuitous information found in the [New Testament] letters. From these a rough grid may be established by which to validate or otherwise the Gospels' (1997:164).

Is it possible to separate an alleged myth from actual history in the Bible or any other historical documents? Ancient historians have developed criteria to determine if an historical document can be trusted.

Captain James Cook vs the Bible

How do we know that Captain Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia and circumnavigated New Zealand in 1770? He is alleged to have

set sail on the first of three voyages to the South Seas, he carried with him secret orders from the British Admiralty to seek 'a Continent or Land of great extent' and to take possession of that country 'in the Name of the King of Great Britain'….

The maps, journals, log books and paintings from Cook's travels are just some of the State Library's incredible records of this exciting time'.

Were those maps, journals, log books and paintings accurate? We face the same challenge when we examine his documents and other historical writings. How do we know those writings are reliable in content? Ancient historians face this challenge. We apply the same tests (criteria) to the Bible as we do to Cook's journals.

Tests for historical documents

How do we know these texts are trustworthy? Historians use these key criteria to check the authenticity of any writing from history (as summarised by John P Meier (1991: 13-16; 167-182)):

• Embarrassment: A fact or event that appears to cause embarrassment to the theology of the gospel authors is less likely to have been invented by them than a fact or event that bolsters their theology.
• Discontinuity: A fact or event that does not appear to have had any basis in earlier tradition is less likely to have been invented by the gospel authors than an event that may have been predicated in an earlier tradition.
• Multiple attestation: A fact or event that appears to have been preserved down multiple lines of independent tradition is more likely to be true than one that is only preserved down a single line.
• Coherence: A fact or event that appears to be consistent with our present understanding of the historical context is more likely to be true than one which appears to be at odds with it.
• Rejection and execution: A fact or event that looks as though it might provide a realistic explanation for the rejection or execution of Jesus is more likely to be true than the more tendentious explanations offered consciously by the gospel authors (e.g. divine providence, the Jews being in league with the devil etc.). (This criterion is less strong as it presumes historicity of the execution to begin with, but given that the execution of Jesus appears to satisfy each of the four previous criteria, it's based on a fairly solid foundation so far as second-order criteria go.) [summary courtesy Gary, Eschaton Now 2010].