There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible that in any profane history.
[Read] anything but history,.. for history must be false.
All history, so far as it is not supported by contemporary evidence, is romance.
A history in which every particular incident may be true may on the whole be false.
Since Caesar, we know his historians are liars. The good writers get read. Bad history doesn't get read.
What would become of history, had we not a dependence on the veracity of the historian, according to the experience, what we have had of mankind?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.
The details given of these horros are too many and too detailed not to have in them a large amount of truth.
Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark's gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all.
A lot of what we think of as history is actually just a version of events which may or may not be true.
Falsifiers of history do not safeguard history but imperil it.
If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
Proceeding further, to inquire whether the facts related by the Four Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing the credibility of the witnesses.
No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture; but modern history is not a very satisfactory side-arm in political polemics; it grows less and less so.
