Can you prove things that have happened in the past?

The death of Christ took place around 30 A.D. Documents were not written long after the events but within close proximity to them. So the idea that these testimonies were written down “hundreds of years later” is not true.

Gospel of Matthew: 50 – 70 A.D.

Gospel of Mark: 40 – 70 A.D.

Gospel of Luke: 50 – 70 A.D.

Gospel of John: 50 – 60 A.D.

The life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses who recorded firsthand testimony. The writers were all living at the same time these events transpired, and they had personal contact with the events or with people who witnessed the events. The book of Acts ends with the Apostle Paul alive in Rome, his death not being recorded. This leads historians to believe that it was written before Paul died, since the other major events in his life have been recorded. He was most likely put to death in the Neronian persection of 64 A.D. If the book of Acts was written before 64 A.D. then the Gospel of Luke (to which Acts was a sequel) had to have been composed some time before that (late 50s or early 60s). Things that have happened in the past can’t be proven or disproven. It is a matter of looking at evidence and deciding what is most probable; not possible. In the legal system you’ve heard of the term probable cause, not possible cause.

How can we trust history?

The trustworthiness of any historical account is based on evidence. Since you can only prove what is observable and repeatable, the scientific method can’t be applied to proving historical accounts. When it comes to history, one must look at the historical documents or manuscripts. Look at the dates and distribution of the manuscripts and the motive for writing. Were the writers getting paid? Did they have something to gain? The Apostles died for what they believed and saw firsthand.

Would you expect to have 4 detailed accounts of the life of a Jewish carpenter from Galilee?

Jesus wasn’t an Emperor. He didn’t write anything. Yet we have more information about Jesus than the Roman emperors of His day. We have hundreds of manuscripts of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke & John and the earliest fragments date back to 135AD. Like all other ancient historical documents, we have a copy of a copy of a copy ect. There are differences in the manuscripts, but grammatical errors don’t take away from the meaning.

Matthew (one of the original 12 disciples)

Mark (based his writings on the testimony of Peter who one of the original disciples)

Luke (companion of Paul)

John (one of the original 12 disciples)

If we have more manuscripts with earlier dates for the Gospels than other ancient history, then why is this not taught as history along with the writings of Tacitus in our high schools and universities?

There is a real simple answer. There is a prejudice against the supernatural. Because of the predisposition to the supernatural, in academic circles they believe it is not intellectual to believe in the bible. They judge the bible based on what they’ve experienced. That is not objective, rational, scientific or academic. That is imposing your experience on history. In court, if a member on the jury has a prejudice against a certain issue in the case, they are thrown off the jury and a new person is brought in. We all have a predisposition or inclination against God to some degree because we haven’t witnessed the kinds of miracles that are documented in the Old and New Testaments and therefore have doubts. So we all must look at the manuscripts objectively. God captured what happened in the first century, protected it and delivered it to us.

Cited Sources: Answers to Tough Questions by Josh McDowell