From Ryan McMullen.
UNFORTUNATELY, Bridget Murphy has interpreted my previous letter (JEP, 30 April) in a way which I did not intend.

My intention was to highlight the difference between history and historians, which one might regard as one and the same, but which I do not.

History is, of course, events which have happened in the past – evidence of which we have through sources – the majority of them biased sources.

If one is not to believe me that sources contain elements of bias, then I can point them in the direction of the Bayeux Tapestry, which was commissioned by Mathilda, the wife of William the Conqueror. Notice that the tapestry was commissioned by the winning side of the Battle of Hastings and, as a result of which, the tapestry contains discrepancies in terms of its accurate historical value.

It is the duty of the historian to take differing sources into account and to achieve a balanced judgment as to what actually happened. To apply this to my example with the Apostles, the Apostles and their message are periods in history. The comparison between the apostles and David Starkey is nonsensical – one is a history, another is a historian.

Therefore, my judgment is that the Bible, as an historical source, has historical discrepancies – much like the Bayeux Tapestry – due to the fact that the apostles who contributed to its creation were on favourable terms with Jesus, and were his followers.
If the apostles are accurate in their depiction, and are to be taken as fact, then why is it that some gospels were decided to be taken out, such as the Gospel according to Judas, the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene and the Gospel according to Thomas?

Two of these were of the original 12 apostles while one was an apostle nonetheless. If all the apostles spoke fact, then all of the gospels would be in concurrence, and hence there would be no need to take any of them out.

It’s unfortunate that Mrs Murphy has branded my comments as arrogant and utter nonsense, but I must apologise for providing comments which differ from hers, and actually substantiating them with knowledge of the difference between history and a historian. I wish to reiterate that science has been hindered by religion for a very long time and has not, in all fairness, had time to develop as much as it could have.

Mrs Murphy’s argument also stated that it would be difficult for a person to persuade or provide evidence for her to become an atheist. I simply stated that without knowledge of concepts such as relativity, string theory and quantum mechanics, it would be difficult to persuade anyone otherwise.

I am also not saying that these areas totally disprove God, but that they provide more rational explanations than are explained in the Bible.

These branches of science require a weighty background knowledge in advance maths, and aren’t for the faint hearted. Although quantum mechanics has now gathered enough evidence for it to be considered standard scientific thought, Albert Einstein could not bring himself to believe in it – because of his believe that ‘God does not play dice’ – although all of his thought experiments were countered by Niels Bohr et al. But perhaps, if he were alive today, he might believe otherwise.

If Mrs Murphy wishes, I could recommend some scientific works which might make her slightly consider, or be more tolerant, of atheists who like to respond to religious letters.
5 Ednor Villas,
Grève d’Azette,
St Clement.