More from Steve Cornell:

The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus' resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner. It is the atheist's anti-supernatural bias that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.

I don’t know what “standard rules for testing truth claims of historical documents” Mr. Cornell is talking about.  He doesn’t iterate what they are, nor does he show how the Bible measures up to them.  So I can only guess as to which standard rules he might be referring to.  Please bear with me as I make the attempt.  I may not have the very fine title of Rev. before my name, nor the practice one gets from being able to hold forth on such things before a rapt congregation once a week.  I might lack Mr. Cornell’s very dapper facial hair, but I DID pick up some basic techniques for analyzing the accuracy and reliability of historical documents while I was earning my humble BA in History.

The first test that comes to mind for me is, internal consistency.  Does the text agree with itself all the way through?  At the very least, you know that a document that contradicts itself must be viewed with some level of skepticism.

The “unbiased and authentic” testimony of the apostles is rife with contradiction.  There are few things they agree on.  Mainly, that the dead body of Jesus was placed in the tomb, and that it was missing when the woman (or women numbering two, three or possibly an indeterminate number more than three) showed up to rub oil and spices on the body.  The reliability of these two points seems pretty well established at least internally.  Christ being resurrected, however, is still in question due to the fact that all we can establish from the testimony is that the body was there, and then it wasn’t.

Another test of the accuracy of an historical account it how close was the person giving the account to the event itself?  None of the apostles were there for the resurrection.  Indeed, none of them were there to hear the account of the angel or angels, or “man” (depending upon which account you go with).  They heard about it third-hand from the woman (or women) who went to the tomb.

They all claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus afterwards, but then again, how many people have claimed to meet Elvis after he died?  While that is not a compelling reason to reject their claims, it is certainly a good illustration of why a reasonable person would not require an “anti-supernatural bias” to do so.

A third thing to remember when deciding how much to depend on an historical account is the bias or motivation of the person recording the event.  Could they have some motivation for recording it the way they did?  Wishful thinking?  Trying to hang on to importance and relevance?

A fourth test is; is there independent information that supports the claims of the document?  There are independent sources that confirm the existence of Jesus Christ, his death on the cross, and his family connections and the persecution of his followers.  There is, however, no independent historical documentation of his resurrection.

While it might be that Christ actually arose from the dead, there is nothing to compel someone to accept the Gospels as a reliable historical record of that event unless they are already prepared to do so.

It is, in fact, Steve Cornell’s faith, not reason, that compels him to accept the Bible as an historic document that establishes incontrovertible evidence of Christ’s resurrection.  This will to believe makes him incapable of recognizing that there are simple, straightforward and more believable explanations for the few paltry facts supported by a disciplined, scholarly approach to the historical validity of the Bible.

While it is Steve Cornell’s prerogative to accept the evidence in whatever light he sees fit for his personal use and abuse, it is incredible to me that he would assert that the Gospels are established by standard scholarship as a reliable historical document, and claim that only an anti-supernatural bias would keep someone from accepting it as fact.