N.T. Wright is an historian of the first century who is convinced the resurrection of Jesus Christ actually happened in history. I have not had opportunity to read his massive The Resurrection of the Son of God. In his shorter — yet provocative — The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is, however, he presents a compact set of reasons for accepting the resurrection as an historical event.
Wright stands in a long series of scholars who have addressed the historicity of the resurrection. “What we have lacked,” though, according to Wright, “has been a serious historical treatment of the subject from a writer firmly anchored within the history of Judaism of the first century.” He does not mean that as an absolute statement: he goes on to present two notable exceptions. His point is that skeptical treatments of the resurrection have been unanchored. They “have tended to be atomistic, to break the tradition down into its earliest hypothetical fragments; like much tradition-historical research they end with as many puzzles as they had at the start.” (Both quotes from p. 129.)
But the inquiry must be based in the real circumstances of the times. Wright says (p. 126),
There is no form of early Christianity known to us—though there are some that have been invented by ingenious scholars—that does not affirm at its heart that after Jesus’ shameful death God raised him to life again. Already by the time of Paul, our earliest written witness, the resurrection of Jesus is not just a single, detached article of faith. It is woven into the very structure of Christian life and thought, informing (among other things) baptism, justification, ethics adn the future hope both for humans and for the cosmos.
In particular, the resurrection is the answer given by all of early Christianity to the question … why did Christianity arise, and why did it take the shape it did? The early Christians themselves reply: we exist because of Jesus’ resurrection.
The resurrection was not a late addition tacked on to the Christian movement to give it some religious or motivational credibility. It was at the core of the earliest affirmations.
Did it really happen? How can we be confident it did? Wright’s answer makes reference to themes he has been discussing throughout the book, so my synopsis here will necessarily be lacking, but I hope I can convey the gist of it. In essence he says that early Christianity without the resurrection is an historical puzzle far more perplexing than any mystery presented by the resurrection itself could be.
Early Christianity was, he writes, a kingdom-of-God movement, a resurrection movement, and a Messianic movement. From our distance these seem commonplace assertions, and if we try we can easily imagine coming up with a set of religious fables to support such thinking. This is why Wright emphasizes the historical setting so strongly, though; for these ways of thinking, in the forms they appeared in early Christianity, were completely foreign to the culture in which Christianity arose.
Jesus in his earthly ministry led what Wright calls a counter-Temple movement. I cannot go into that in detail, but I can at least mention just how counter-cultural that was within a strong and proud Jewish Temple tradition. It would be like a strong and charismatic leader conducting an anti-Constitution movement in America; only more so, because Jesus set himself up as the replacement for Temple religion.
But early Christianity, as a kingdom-of-God movement, was not just counter-Temple, it was counter-Empire. Wright says, “When Paul said ‘Jesus is Lord,’ it is clear that he meant that Caesar was not.” This was not a counter-Empire movement resembling Jewish expectations in any way. Jesus died at the hands of the Romans, who continued to rule over Judea. (By AD 70 they had destroyed the Jews’ holy city of Jerusalem.)
If you had said to some first-century Jews “the kingdom of God is here” and had explained yourself by speaking of a new spiritual experience, a new sense of forgiveness, an exciting reordering of your private religious interiority, they might well have said that they were glad you had had this experience, but why did you refer to it as the kingdom of God?
Finally with respect to the kingdom of God statements in early Christianity, Wright says,
We must as historians postulate a reason to account for this group of first-century Jews who had cherished these [political/military] kingdom-expectations, saying that their expectations had been fulfilled, though not in the way they had imagined. The early Christians themselves with one voice say that the reasons was the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
And that leads us to the second pertinent aspect of early Christianity toward which Wright points: it was a resurrection movement, with a view of resurrection utterly unlike that which had been thought of before. I will go into that in more detail in a future post. Wright’s case for the resurrection is cumulative, and I have presented only a portion of it, but enough for now.
Before ending here, though, and at the risk of starting two different conversations at once, I want to connect this topic to a previous one: who was Jesus, and what was his central message? I have asked that question of visitors here. This now is my condensed answer: he was (and is) the Son of God, the Messiah, the clearest and fullest revelation of God in all of history, the second Person of the Trinity, and thus God in the flesh. His central message, spoken 51 times in the Gospel of Luke alone, was the Kingdom of God: what it is, what it means that God is King, how we can enter into the experience of his kingdom, what it means if we stand outside it in rebellion, and his own position enthroned at the right hand of God the Father.
It was not then, and is not yet, a political kingdom, yet it is a living and loving reality for those who will accept God as king.
Early Christianity recognized it as such. They knew Jesus as King, even after Jesus’ death. Only the resurrection can adequately explain this extraordinary belief.
Only the resurrection can adequately explain this extraordinary belief.
That or maybe human credulity (which seems to be well nigh boundless).
On that note I just saw the documentary FINGER OF GOD this afternoon—in which the film-maker accepts every supernatural claim associated with Christianity that comes his way. From people’s fillings turning into gold during a church service to teenage faith-healers walking up to people, asking about their health problems, praying with them and then telling them they’ve been healed (something that could easily get people killed when they stop taking their medications as a result).
When I see an exhibition of credulity that extreme among modern believers I have little difficulty in thinking that human gullibility and the “will to believe” is more than sufficient to account for the beliefs of early Christians.
David, if you’re going to suggest human credulity as the explanation you’ll have to put it in a context where it makes even a little bit of sense. “Credulity” is not an empty word into which you can pour the meaning, “any impetus to believe something I think is strange or hard to accept.” “Credulity” can be credibly applied as an explanation only in certain circumstances. There has to at least be a belief that is proposed, of which someone will try to persuade others, and that others may have some inclination to believe. Therefore if you want to resort to credulity to explain away the resurrection in the current context:
First, you’re going to have to show that someone in the mid-first century would have proposed the kingdom of God being of the nature that Christians said it was. There was no historical precedent for this. There was no religious precedent for it. If it didn’t come from Jesus Christ, it had to have come from some other equally creative and charismatic source, with enough force of character to cause people to believe in it against all prior belief. Who would that have been?
Second, you’re going to have to show that some group of people in the mid-first century would have wanted to believe this and persuade others to believe it, even though there was no historical precedent for it, no reason for it in terms of Jewish religion, not even any good basis for it in Jewish tradition, and even though it would put them in deep trouble with the existing Roman kingdom.
Third, you would have to explain why every proponent of this kingdom-of-God belief in mid-first century Judea attributed this extraordinary new belief to Jesus Christ and associated it with his resurrection.
Fourth, you would have to explain how “the kingdom of God is among you” (apart from any visible earthly change of political rule) and “Jesus is King” could possibly have made any sense at all in mid-first century Judea, after the death of Christ, without the resurrection; when all prior conceptions of the kingdom of God ran quite contrary to this.
I think the circumstances in which “credulity” works as an explanation apply to you far more than they could have credibly done to the mid-first century Christians. As I said above, for “credulity” to apply, there must first be some belief that is proposed, which is of course the case for anti-supernatulism in our culture. The belief must be one of which someone will try to persuade others. We don’t know why, apart from the resurrection, that would have been the case for the Christian conception of the kingdom of God in the first decades, and it’s hard to imagine it even being done under the circumstances unless something extraordinary and real had turned around their thinking; but we do know that is the case of anti-supernaturalism today: people do try to persuade not to believe in the supernatural. The belief must be one that others may want to believe. That applies here also, for you are quite obviously motivated to deny supernaturalism, and within our culture (unlike the case for mid-first century believers in the resurrection) it is relatively comfortable to deny the supernatural. It costs you nothing in terms of trouble with the government or (if your job is like most) with your employer.
You give every appearance of being credulous, David. The circumstances for credulity fit you. You’re ignoring evidence right and left, and believing a line that has likely been fed you from somewhere, maybe from family or friends, maybe from school, maybe from yourself. But credulity has a definition, and on the face of it, it fits your circumstance a whale of a lot better than that of the mid-first century Christians.
Further here on the credulous nature of much atheism, from Paul C. Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University.
First, you’re going to have to show that someone in the mid-first century would have proposed the kingdom of God being of the nature that Christians said it was. There was no historical precedent for this.
So you’re saying an idea that was new and would have been rejected by most of the culture of the time is evidence for the truth of those claims?
Given the enormous number of cults and new religions that have emerged throughout history this seems rather a weak basis for the claim that the Gospels are historically accurate. Most people today think Scientology is ridiculous….but it’s still managed to get millions of converts. These events occurred in the Roman empire during a time when there was a great deal of exposure to other cultures. This has historically been a situation ripe for cultural and religious innovation.
Second, you’re going to have to show that some group of people in the mid-first century would have wanted to believe this and persuade others to believe it…
See above. The same applies.
Third, you would have to explain why every proponent of this kingdom-of-God belief in mid-first century Judea attributed this extraordinary new belief to Jesus Christ and associated it with his resurrection.
Why would I need to do that? Those were the claims the Christians made. There is nothing about these ideas, even if they are an innovation, that calls for a supernatural explanation.
Fourth, you would have to explain how “the kingdom of God is among you” (apart from any visible earthly change of political rule) and “Jesus is King” could possibly have made any sense at all in mid-first century Judea, after the death of Christ, without the resurrection; when all prior conceptions of the kingdom of God ran quite contrary to this.
As I said, human beings are capable of innovation. In religious concepts as much as anything else. There is nothing about having some innovative religious concepts that demands an extraordinary explanation.
As for how the idea that Jesus resurrected originated among Christians we can do little but speculate. We simply don’t have enough information to do anything else.
But to claim that we can conclude, based on the little data we have, that the resurrection is the most likely explanation (much less the only reasonable one), just demonstrates the credulity and will to believe that lies at the heart of nearly all religiosity.
For any who would like the text of THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ATHEISM rather than listening to the audio:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
I feel no need to comment on it. The weakness of an argument is not diminished by efforts to psychoanalyze those who don’t agree with it. But they’re perfectly welcome to make the attempt—its only fair, since I will not hesitate to say that I think the actual basis of their Christianity is probably primarily psychological rather than rational. If you think you can better argue the same for atheists, good luck in your efforts to do so.
I’ve noticed that David repeatedly trys to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association in his arguments.
– Because humans make mistakes, Christian’s are mistaken.
– Because a particular Christian believes in nonsense, Christianity is nonsense.
– Because we know that history is littered with false gods, the Christian God is a false God.
– Because it’s possible for our minds to be tricked into believing falsehoods, Christian’s have been tricked into believing falsehoods.
– Etc.
You really need to stop that, David.
Steve, I agree. Every single one of those forms of argument could be turned against the atheist view with only a moment’s thought. Actually I’ve done that (with more than a moment’s thought!) with David’s credulity argument, because I think it is not only capable of being turned against the atheist view, in this case it can be shown to fit the atheist view much better than the mid-first century Christians’ view of the kingdom and the resurrection.
David, you asked,
No. That was not what I was saying. I was saying that new ideas throughout history come from somewhere; they do not come from nowhere. According to Wright, early Christians’ thinking about the kingdom of God had no credible source other than the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his resurrection. It was not just new, it was a 180° turn from contemporary thinking on the kingdom.
Scientology is a poor counter-example because it has historically identifiable precursors. Note what Wright said in the quote begining “If you had said…” Though it was perhaps not so revolutionary for Jesus to preach a religion of private interiority (though here Wright is intentionally tweaking some caricatures of Christianity, I think), to call it the “kingdom of God” would have been like your local Republican organizer to say, “I have just had a new experience of peace in my heart and personal fulfillment, and it is because today, Labor Day 2009, I have become convinced that the Republicans control the Federal Government.” If the Republicans were actually in control of Congress and the White House I would have used a Democrat as my example: the point is that it would be a more than strange thing to say in view of the situation on the ground. No one would do it; or if they did, they wouldn’t get much of a new world-changing movement off the ground that way.
The second difficulty with your counter-example is that Scientology rose up in a much more heterogeneous culture, where there is little cost to being different in that way. There is a reason Jesus was crucified and L. Ron Hubbard was not. Two reasons, actually: religious and political.
These things happened in the heart of Judaism, Judaism that was in a most conservative mood, religiously speaking. There is no historically credible connection between “other cultures” and Jesus’ view of the kingdom of God.
No, David. There is nothing in what you wrote above, even if it were true, that would explain why people would be motivated to believe this new teaching on the kingdom of God. See for yourself: where did you write an explanation for why they would have wanted to believe, in the face of strong opposition and persecution, by the way…
Because (a) there is a startling new idea floating around the world at this point in history, and (b) everyone who promotes this view attributes it to the resurrection. To deny a connection between the resurrection and the new view of the kingdom is to deny all of the primary sources on it, and all the contemporary evidence.
You haven’t really addressed the problem of your own credulity. You’ve attempted to deflect it by saying the first century Christians could also have been credulous, but that’s not much of an argument, and in particular you have not countered my claim that the circumstances supporting their supposed credulity were nowhere near as favorable as the circumstances supporting credulity in favor of antisupernaturalism today.
Thank you for the text link to the Vitz talk. It appears to be pretty much the same lecture as the one I linked to on audio.
My question is: why anyone is surprised that atheists pose largely fallacious arguments? Atheism is first and foremost a deep disorder of the heart before it is a problem of the mind: if the heart wills not to accept rather than to follow the evidence [evidence not a priori limited to the MESs], then all manner of subtrefuge, selective inattention, fallacy, fear, and avoidance will serve to buttress the atheistic house and foundation of sand.
I’ve been reading without commenting over the past few weeks (partly because I’m way too busy, partly to step back a bit for a broader perspective) the various comments from atheists to the dozen or so most recent posts… and, without exaggeration, there is little if anything that counters this observation. (I find my intellectual stomach turning, in fact, at what is presented.)
Moreover, reflecting back upon the past three years or so of what atheists have blogged on and what appears in the media only serves to deeply anchor this observation. I’m getting a sad sense of wasted time and effort. No, that’s not to imply sound arguments and clarifications are at the center of an honest heart turning toward the Light. It’s just a sad observation that even the strongest, soundest arguments in support of truth mean little to a hardened heart… which has provided me the tiniest glimpse into the saddness Moses (and certainly the prophets, the Fathers, the Scholastics, the Reformation thinkers, the martyrs throughout history and Christ himself) must have felt facing similar circumstances.
Why is it when one beggars tries to tell another beggar where to find Bread, that the latter is viewed as a fool… while the former proceeds almost blissfully to destruction? Why is it that our very ability to reason and knowledge itself are doubted–if not decried–in order to avoid the summum bonum? What is it about the human heart that tragically, obscenely attracts us to the chains deep inside Plato’s cave rather than to be overwhelmed by the True, the Good, the Beautiful?
I would want to add this to Holo’s first paragraph: that if atheism is indeed a deep disorder of the heart (with which I agree), it is but one reflection of a deep disorder from which all of us need healing. Jesus’ resurrection had a purpose, which was not mainly to found a new religion or to show off his identity. It was to complete a work of forgiveness, restoration, reconciliation, and healing, for us all. We all start out with that same deep disorder. We all need the work of Christ to correct and heal it. It’s not a matter of some of us starting out wise and good, and others starting out deeply disordered. On a moral level we start out equally faulty. On an intellectual level we start out equally confused. Only the grace of God makes any difference. That grace is his free offer to all who will accept it.
By the way, Holo, did you switch “latter” and “former” in your last paragraph?
I’ve noticed that David repeatedly trys to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association in his arguments.
– Because humans make mistakes, Christian’s are mistaken.
– Because a particular Christian believes in nonsense, Christianity is nonsense.
– Because we know that history is littered with false gods, the Christian God is a false God.
– Because it’s possible for our minds to be tricked into believing falsehoods, Christian’s have been tricked into believing falsehoods.
– Etc.
You really need to stop that, David.
You are (as seems to happen so frequently on this blog) misrepresenting my argument.
I did not argue that because humans make mistakes, Christian’s are mistaken (that, indeed, would be an idiotic argument). Or any of the other fallacious arguments you accuse me of.
I argued that since we know human beings can and frequently have, throughout history, believed things on little or no evidence (indeed, often in direct contradiction of clear evidence) we should not expect that Christians were immune to this. And an argument that assumes otherwise is on very shaky ground indeed.
There is no reason to think that early Christians may not have, like the rest of humanity, been subject to wishful thinking, exaggeration, miscommunication, outright lying and all the other flaws which serve to create beliefs which have little resemblance to reality.
And I challenge you, Steve, to quote me engaging in any of the fallacies you accuse me of.
As to your comments Tom, I see little point in going back and forth with you on this so I’m going to let my previous comment rest as a statement I’m satisfied with and see no need to elaborate on.
As to this:
You haven’t really addressed the problem of your own credulity. You’ve attempted to deflect it by saying the first century Christians could also have been credulous, but that’s not much of an argument, and in particular you have not countered my claim that the circumstances supporting their supposed credulity were nowhere near as favorable as the circumstances supporting credulity in favor of antisupernaturalism today.
I’ll just say we have a mutual perception of the other’s credulity. But I see little value in debating the issue.
David, you write this:
The argument I have made (I remind you again) is that there is better reason to think you have chosen your beliefs on little or no evidence than to think the early Christians did; that there is better reason to think your position represents wishful thinking, exaggeration, etc. than to think theirs did. And I have not merely asserted this, I have argued it. You need not reply to the argument if you do not prefer to do so.
david ellis,
You make this form of argument later in your comment. Not explicitly and forcefully, but in a hinting kind of way. See here…
a) The bolded part hints at the useless red herring I’m talking about. You’d be better served to just leave it out because I don’t hear a reasoned argument from you, backed by evidence, that supports the claim that Christianity was subject to wishful thinking, etc.
b) Yes, there are reasons based on the evidence we find in the historical record. Tom and others have been listing them.
c) In order to avoid the red herring, you must provide reasons of your own to support your own argument. Reasons that are supported by the historical evidence.
For example, if you want to argue in favor of the lying theory, then find evidence in the historical record that it took place in this specific situation, and not just say that humans lie a lot about these things (an assertion without evidence).
david ellis,
Here’s another example. You start off by incorrectly summarizing Tom’ argument, but it doesn’t matter that you did so incorrectly. What matters is your red herring of a non-argument that follows in the second paragraph. You could have left that paragraph out and your overall argument wouldn’t have suffered one bit.
The argument I have made (I remind you again) is that there is better reason to think you have chosen your beliefs on little or no evidence than to think the early Christians did; that there is better reason to think your position represents wishful thinking, exaggeration, etc. than to think theirs did. And I have not merely asserted this, I have argued it. You need not reply to the argument if you do not prefer to do so.
It’s my opinion that you argued it sufficiently poorly to not require my refutation.
SteveK:
You make this form of argument later in your comment. Not explicitly and forcefully, but in a hinting kind of way
No, I did not. The argument you accused me of was of the type below:
Because it’s possible for our minds to be tricked into believing falsehoods, Christian’s have been tricked into believing falsehoods.
But I, in fact, did not argue that Christians were tricked, self-deceived or even mistaken in their beliefs.
I simply argued that Tom’s argument insufficiently takes into account the possibility that these sorts of things happened in early Christianity and therefore fails (rather badly) to establish his claim that the resurrection is, based on the data we have available, likely to have occurred.
If you can’t tell the difference between this and what you accuse me of then there’s little anyone can do to clarify the distinction for you.
a) The bolded part hints at the useless red herring I’m talking about. You’d be better served to just leave it out because I don’t hear a reasoned argument from you, backed by evidence, that supports the claim that Christianity was subject to wishful thinking, etc…..
And you won’t get one. All human beings are capable of wishful thinking (including me and you). This is common knowledge and I won’t waste my limited time debating the point.
Yes, there are reasons based on the evidence we find in the historical record. Tom and others have been listing them.
And I’ve been explaining why I find his reasons less than compelling (to say the least).
For example, if you want to argue in favor of the lying theory, then find evidence in the historical record that it took place in this specific situation, and not just say that humans lie a lot about these things (an assertion without evidence).
To give an example we’d probably both basically agree on, I do not need to argue (though I probably could) that Joseph Smith lied about receiving the Book of Mormon on gold tablets from an angel to counter the argument of a Mormon claiming that, based on the historical evidence, its likely Smith really did receive these tablets.
Recall, I’m not attempting to prove a contrary claim (or any claim at all but that the argument he presented doesnt succeed). And all one needs to succeed in this is to point out the obvious fact that Smith having lied is just as consistent with the available facts as the claim that he really received the gold tablets from an angel.
As for the early Christians, we have even less to go on. We have some documents even Christians admit date to decades after the events. Most of which documents (especially the gospels) are of very uncertain authorship.
Knowing so little its more difficult to say what actually happened (unlike with Smith, who was almost certainly a fraud).
But let’s examine just one possibility. Let’s stick with the one you mentioned (lying) and which I gave a more recent example of. Let’s ignore the possibility of visions and exaggeration over time. Lets just stick with flat out religious fraud. We know it occurs. We have countless examples both historically and today. We know there are many plausible motives for it—being revered as someone through whom the divine communicates has a lot of perks.
Could some follower or followers of Jesus have pulled this off after his death? Sure, all they have to do is claim to have seen him in the flesh. As the saying goes, there’s a sucker born every minute. There are more than enough people out there with the will to believe to accept an implausible claim like this—even if its a claim the majority of people of that culture would find repellent. Again, modern cults amply demonstrate this. As do cults of the past.
So why is it more plausible to think Jesus really rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven rather than that a religious fraud was perpetrated?
Nothing in what’s been said so far gives a reasonable person cause to prefer the former explanation to the latter. And the later is certainly the less extraordinary claim….
I’m sure you’ll give reasons why you reject the idea that it could have been fraud (I won’t try to enumerate them all, an example will do for now, you’re welcome to give others):
–Jesus was just killed. Why would his followers risk death by continuing his “cult”?
And the answer to that one is fairly obvious. They may have thought they could get away with it. Keep quiet for a little while. Lay low til things blow over. There’s nothing implausible about such an explanation. Smith, for example, took quite on quite a lot of risk for the sake of his invented religion—and eventually died because of it.
Could the same not have happened in early Christianity?
I’d be interested to hear any other reasons why you think not.
David Ellis, you wrote:
To wit:
Thank you for the clarity and depth of your explanation.
And please do not continue to conflate Mormonism, which rests on no historical happenings, with Christianity, whose foundation is absolutely rooted in the soil and sweat of real people on real ground.
This is a series of posts about historical evidences for Christianity. Historical evidences are relevant to the Christian faith and utterly irrelevant in the case of now-lost Golden Plates supposedly delivered in secret to one solitary man. There’s nothing there for history to ask about. Whatever you say about Christianity, you cannot say there’s nothing there for historians to research — which is what this is about.
Sure, there were people who gullibly believed Joseph Smith, because they were (apparently) credulous. The land was ripe for new beliefs at the time, as you know if you know any of the history of New York around that period.
Judea was not ripe for this kind of new belief at the time of Jesus, as I have been arguing. But the belief arose, and it arose among people who had either direct access to their experience of Jesus’ life, teaching, and miracles, or near-direct access through personal eyewitnesses. Unlike believers in the Golden Tablets, if they were being lied to, they would have simply said, “I’m sorry, but you can’t get me to believe something contrary to what I’ve seen with my own eyes (or heard from many trusted eyewitnesses).”
You keep insisting on putting this up somewhere in the ethereal theoretical air. Wright says your kind of theorizing is “unanchored.” He’s talking about history. You’re talking about whatever you can (credulously) dream up as some alternative, regardless of the events or the evidence that pertain to the actual circumstances there in the first century.
Feel free to explain that you don’t need to explain that my reasons are wrong…
Here’s a great example of your disconnection with the facts:
Quite simply, it didn’t happen that way. Read the second through fourth chapters of Acts if you think they were trying to lay low. Anchoring, my friend. Facts, evidence, all those things. Useful stuff if you can get your hands on it.
And please do not continue to conflate Mormonism, which rests on no historical happenings, with Christianity, whose foundation is absolutely rooted in the soil and sweat of real people on real ground.
Was Joseph Smith not a real historical figure? Mormonism, quite clearly, is based on real historical events. The matter of contention between Mormons and nonbelievers like myself (and yourself) concerns whether those historical events involved supernatural occurrences or merely acts of religious fraud. We aren’t dealing, in Mormonism, with something like the deeds of Hercules who may be an entirely fictional character (or may not, I don’t claim to know).
Historical evidences are relevant to the Christian faith and utterly irrelevant in the case of now-lost Golden Plates supposedly delivered in secret to one solitary man. There’s nothing there for history to ask about.
Actually, in regard to what history can ask about, we have quite a bit of information to work with in regard to Mormonism….its just that all of it clearly favors (at least to everyone but Mormons biased in favor of their faith) the religious fraud hypothesis. Mormonism made claims like that a tribe of Jews existed in North America in ancient times and that elephants lived in America during those times (just to give two of the many possible examples). To claim that, in regard to Mormonism, there is “nothing there for historians to research” is simply a display of ignorance.
With Christianity, though, we have far less information to work with. Unlike the more recent example of Mormonism, about whose origins and period of history we naturally have far more information, most of the claims of Christianity are essentially unfalsifiable.
Judea was not ripe for this kind of new belief at the time of Jesus, as I have been arguing.
Maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t. But for Christianity to get started all it needs is a small amount of converts (and that’s all it appeared to have early on–Christianity doesn’t seem to have ever really caught on among Jews, then or now–it was among Gentiles that it flourished).
But the belief arose, and it arose among people who had either direct access to their experience of Jesus’ life, teaching, and miracles, or near-direct access through personal eyewitnesses.
Or perhaps near-direct access to the fraud(s) who claimed to be personal eyewitnesses. Can you give any good reason to think this hypothesis implausible? And understand, I’m not endorsing this hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out that, based on the paltry data we have to go on, its entirely plausible.
You keep insisting on putting this up somewhere in the ethereal theoretical air. Wright says your kind of theorizing is “unanchored.”
The word for it is speculation. Inevitable, since we have so little information to go on. Your explanation is equally speculative….you just don’t recognize it as such because, like the Mormons, you’re utterly biased and incapable of thinking objectively about beliefs so near and dear to your heart. Its natural and understandable that this should be so. This is true of the vast majority in pretty much every religion on the face of the earth. I’m sure you’ve noted it when Mormons argue for their religion or when Hindus argue for the evidence for reincarnation or when Muslims argue that the Quran accurately anticipates scientific advances in a way impossible were it not the Word of God. At least you’ve probably noted how abysmal their arguments are if you’ve not lived so insular a life as to not have had, even with the internet, contact with such people.
And, to those not already convinced of the truth of YOUR faith, the arguments for Christianity look equally absurd.
Since there seems so little of actual substance in your argument I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this. You may have the last word.
Feel free to continue to argue that these scraps of historical data are sufficient to establish the claims of Christianity as probable fact. I’m sure you’ll have little trouble convincing the already convinced (and practically no one else).
David,
No; although there was an identifiable historical figure at the founding of Mormonism, Mormonism as a system of beliefs is not based on any identifiable historical figure. What I mean is this: the Golden Plates, if they were real, could have been delivered to any other person at any other time in history and would have had essentially the same theological import as they did being delivered to Joseph Smith in 19th century New York. And there was nothing about 19th century New York that one could look at and say, “yes, this confirms Mormonism,” or “no, this disconfirms it.” (Actually, there is some disconfirming information in that the Book of Mormon is curiously tied to its time and place when it purports to be timeless and not tied to any one location.)
That is what I meant when I referred to Mormonism as not being tied to history. I mean that its doctrines are not tied to any historical event. The truth or falsehood of its beliefs do not depend on what happened or did not happen there in upstate New York, except for the purported fact that Joseph Smith was delivered a revelation.
The claims I’m presenting in this series are backed by solid historical research: that the early Christian movement was a kingdom of God movement, that it was a resurrection movement, that it was a messianic movement (post on that coming soon). I’ll also be presenting other historically testable claims from other authors as I continue this series beyond the N.T. Wright phase. In short, I intend to continue to show your assertion on this wrong.
Maybe you don’t demonstrate a lot of interest in what the actual historical situation was.
Sure. One, the “frauds” actually were eyewitnesses, and did not defraud themselves. Two, biblical Christianity is the antithesis of that kind of dishonesty. Have you read the Bible? Three, the people who knew whether the resurrection really happened staked their lives on the claim that it did. Four, the continuing series I’m in now is showing, and will show, that there are things going on in the first century for which the fraud hypothesis is historically and psychologically not credible.
I’m surprised you granted me “equally” there. But I hope you’ll continue paying attention, and that you’ll discover we actually have more information to go on than you suppose.
Tom,
Say those who could have been frauds. On what grounds do you hold that the eyewitnesses could not have been frauds? By the word of those who could have been frauds? Can you not see the circularity of this problem? As far as I know none of the Gospel writers claim to have known or have seen the incidents personally, and I’m sure that they are anonymous. So how is it that you can know that these men were completely different from every other religious fraud in history – that despite all the mistakes, deceit, self-delusion, wishful thinking, etc. found in every other religion, yours is free of these problems and above such scrutiny?
Um, our time, and all prior past times, are rife with charlatans who hid behind the Bible and preyed on those who want its contents to be true? Are you now making a claim that exposure to the Bible prevents people from being dishonest, because I’m pretty sure you’ve said that this is not the case in prior posts and comments.
Two parts here: One, if you’re a charlatan, you’d lie about having staked your life or others having staked their lives on what you’re selling because it helps sell your story. Two, countless numbers of people have martyred themselves for religions you hold to be false.
Good luck making a case that frauds or mistaken beliefs could not have occurred in ancient Judea. We live in a far more skeptical and scientifically disciplined time, and frauds are still among us.
The scholarly historian’s two best friends (detectives too!).
1) Early attestation of public events via known eyewitnesses.
2) Multiple, independent sources of attestation that corroborate each other.
SteveK,
I think it’s odd that you would cite exactly what Christianity does not have:
I don’t define “early attestation” as 30 to 50 years after the events. (Citing the Bible, Acts, etc. as its own corroboration would be circular. This is so obvious that I will spend little if any time arguing about it.)
No one knows who the Gospel writers were – this is important for a lot of reasons, but among them it would help to understand what point of view they bring to their accounts. (Reconstructing who they were from their accounts doesn’t add any information here – it just adds a layer of speculation; all that we are left with are the accounts, and that’s what we have to go with.)
As for multiple, independent sources of attestation these are famously weak, mostly describing the existence of the cult of Christianity, that the Christians claimed to follow a man named Jesus, etc. The Gospels are better explained by the conclusion of mainstream scholarship — chiefly that Mark and Q preceded Matthew and Luke, and John followed after. Each made changes and additions to the Jesus story that follow a narrative – what they wanted their audience to understand about Jesus. You can say that the narrative sprang unbidden from the text, or you can make a vastly more probabilistic argument that the authors of these texts behaved like every other author before and since and conveyed their authorial intent.
I see those making a case for the historicity of the NT as having only two tacks available to them: change how the field of history operates (what it accepts and what it concludes), or provide evidence equal to the claims. I have yet to come across anything in either approach that does more than placate those who desperately want the historical evidence to be what it is not.
Tony,
This will be quite a lengthy series by the time I’m done with it. One of the points to be made later in the series is that attestation of the resurrection goes back to within a few years (no more than six or seven) after the event.
I will also argue that it is not circular to cite the documents contained in the Bible as corroboration for each other.
Further, I am relying on historical scholarship in this particular sense: I am basing my arguments on widely agreed facts. It is not controversial among historians that early Christianity was a kingdom-of-God, resurrection, messianic movement. Thus even if it is true that “no one knows who the Gospel writers were,” there is nevertheless a body of generally accepted knowledge about the events in question. We can learn a lot from even the limited portions of the Bible that have widespread affirmation among historians.
Tony,
By today’s standards, maybe, but by first century standards it’s early. I suggest you take it up with historians who define these sort of things as I’m in no position to define it. Also, the attestation is earlier than 30-50 if you consider the source for the writings (Q, etc) must have preceeded the writings themselves.
Historians cite independent writings that, among other things, are early as possible and have multiple attestation. These writings just happen to be called Acts, Corinthians, etc.
What? You expected them to use later writings that had no other writings to corroborate what the late writings were saying? Can you see the irony in that, given the complaints you mention? It’s obviously not circular to do this so I won’t spend time arguing about it.
Further on that irony, the criteria for independent attestation seem to be something like this:
1. It must be an early document, contemporary with the alleged events, coming from someone who had reason to know whether the alleged events actually happened.
2. It must affirm that the alleged events really happened, for otherwise it would not be attestation.
3. It must be written by someone who is known not to be a believer, for otherwise it wouldn’t be independent; obviously Christians had an axe to grind, and their witness is tainted by their motivations.
4. Therefore (from 2 and 3) it must be a document that says the events happened, written by someone who says the events did not happen.
Further, and in contrast, let us take the case of a document that affirms the events happened, written by someone who actually agrees with what he wrote in that document. From 3, we conclude that this testimony is tainted and cannot be trusted. Therefore regardless of the quality, date, or authorship of that document, it is inadmissible. It is inadmissible even if it is true! No document that affirms that Jesus rose from the dead can be admitted into the discussion, because the one who wrote it is obviously believes it happened. To rely on early believers’ testimony regarding the resurrection is circular reasoning, because, after all, they were believers!
Thus only the only acceptable testimony affirming the resurrection is that which comes from someone who denies the resurrection.
Are these the rules under which we are supposed to operate?
(See further discussion on this here.)
Yes.
That point has bothered me for years. If somebody was contemporary to the events and knew what had happened then, yes, he was probably a Christian.
So my question has always been, where are the contemporary sources who say it didn’t happen? Where are the writings saying “these guys think Jesus rose again but ignored the fact that we produced the body”? Or “they worship as a God this man who never even lived. I mean really, there never even was a man called Pilate. And a census where Rome demanded you return to your ancestral home? Come, join me as we laugh them into their graves”.
The closest we come is the Talmud, which tells us that Jesus did live and that He was a miracle worker, and that they happily had Him, whose father was not His mother’s husband, killed – as He deserved.
Although the NT was circulating within years of Jesus’ life we don’t have the rebuttals of eyewitnesses. Now that’s a not barking dog.
On early attestation, 20-30 years is a far sight earlier than the hundred/s that critics first invented in order to discredit the documentary evidence. Now we have the documentary evidence that the Gospels themselves were already copied onto codices within 30 years of Jesus’ death. That is to say, they had first been written for their Jewish audience on scrolls which were now deteriorating and were being replaced by codex copies within those few decades.
Likewise, by the critic’s own arguments, it is by this early date, within 30 years of the events, that we not only have the claims but we also have them appearing in supposedly edited and redacted versions. And for all the claims of “lost Christianities” we don’t have any of the ones where people weren’t worshipping Jesus as God, or where they were rallying to war under His name – or that of someone in His lineage. When we do have later corruptions of the Way we still have people acknowledging His divinity and trying to explain His Crucifixion and Resurrection. They did so by saying, to return to my previous point, that He was God but not actually a man and not by saying that He was never Crucified at all, or that He ceased to exist and was never seen after His Crucifixion.
Tom,
I see that you are taking the tack of requesting to change how historical standards should be applied to Christianity.
Your list of demands for independent attestation is not my list. They are not my requirements, and I don’t know anyone who argues such.
Yes, historians look for eyewitnesses to events. They look for known sources because they can then balance what the account claims with the author’s presumed intent. (For instance, accounts of battles during the Middle Ages are almost universally treated with great skepticism, because they are a) written decades or centuries after the events, b) by those who were not eyewitnesses, and c) are clearly writing from a viewpoint in which they are trying to aggrandize the role of their patron, Lord, etc. No historian worth a lick would accept as certain fact accounts from sources that fall prey to these shortcomings.
If you are going to ask for more lenient standards on the presumed veracity of accounts that fall prey to the shortcomings similar to those in the Bible (and medieval warfare), you should apply those standards consistently. Unfortunately, that would make you both very credulous and very multi-religious.
Please be specific, Tony, and show in what way I’m doing that.
In your answer please explain how it is you affirm (as you have in this recent comment):
1. Eyewitness accounts are necessary
2. The claims affirmed in those accounts are of primary significance
3. No historian worth a lick would accept a source that is self-aggrandizing
And yet you do not consider my list in my last comment as representing your viewpoint?
Here’s another important consideration, Tony. Suppose for the sake of argument that there are a series of documents circulating ca. 50-80 A.D. that are the kinds of documents that for you would qualify as independent confirmation of the resurrection. These documents would be:
1. Written by early, authoritative sources.
2. Affirmations of the resurrection events.
Now, suppose that not all of those documents survived the years. Is that an outrageous supposition? Hardly. Which ones would have been most likely to survive? I suggest it would be the ones that were written by the most respected, authoritative sources; written by eyewitnesses, and/or by close associates of the witnesses, and/or by the most highly respected Christian leaders of the time.
I don’t think I’m saying anything so far that contradicts known historical method or assumptions so far.
What then do you suppose would be the fate of those documents? I would suggest that people who accepted their veracity would consider them quite important, considering their role in describing and explaining the single most unique, hopeful, encouraging, life-affirming event in all of human history. They would carefully preserve such records of the events. They would copy and distribute them widely. After a time they would probably recognize a set of them as having passed the most crucial tests of authenticity.
Is there anything historically unlikely in what I’ve said so far? Is there any violation of historical method in this?
I’ll be interested to see how you answer those specific questions. Thank you.
Tom,
I’d say it more generally like this. The argument is the same and so are the results.
1. Written by early, authoritative sources.
2. Affirmations of what occurred (the truth).
Tom,
Well, for one you wrote:
I think that citing a religious movement’s documents (written by its zealous adherents and proselytizers) as valid witnesses for supernatural events is ahistorical. That is why, among other things, I don’t have a very high regard for the historical accuracy of Muhammed’s miracles, e.g.
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/miracles-of-mohammed.htm
As for this:
1. I didn’t say 1.
2. Eyewitness accounts are preferred to hearsay accounts. The reasons for this are so obvious they do not need explication.
3. I didn’t say 3 either.
If you didn’t say 3, how am I to interpret this?
I’ll await your response to my more recent prior comment before answering the rest.
Tony,
I’m probably not going out on a limb to say that you DO accept these same documents as valid witnesses for naturalistic events. In other words, they are considered reliable and meet the criteria for trustworthiness when it comes to reporting those events. Telling, no?
“These” is a demonstrative, plural pronoun. It refers to all the items contained in the list I gave, a through c. You would have to misunderstand a sentence containing a list and the demonstrative pronoun “these” to conclude that I intended “No historian worth a lick would accept a source that is self-aggrandizing.”
Steve,
I have reason to believe that naturalistic events occur from personal experience, and their event in the historical past is a small hurdle for me to clear. That this would be “telling” for you invites a certain theater of the absurd quality to our discussion.
Tony, thank you for that explanation. What then is your opinion of items 2 and 3 here? You’ve let me know you don’t accept them in the form I’ve stated them. Could you let me know what you agree or disagree with in them, and how you would re-write them?
I’m also still eagerly waiting to hear your response to this.
Tony,
I don’t understand what you are saying here as it relates to my comment. Maybe my comment wasn’t put clearly so I’ll say it another way to see if that fixes it.
Do you consider the documents to be historically reliable, according to whatever criteria you think, such that we can trust them to tell us about naturalistic events of the first century?
I propose a test case to set out our criteria for being convinced of an ancient extraordinary event. One in which no one here has any vested interest:
Imagine that it is claimed that we have good reason to believe, based on historical evidence, that a yogi in the Himalaya mountains around the year 500 AD had the ability to levitate and even fly (much like Superman).
What historical evidence would be sufficient to convince you of this?
Personally, I have difficulty thinking of any sort of historical documentation that would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person.
Though I could still be convinced (it would just take more than historical evidence alone)….for example, if it could be shown that some yogis today can do it my cause for being skeptical that it is possible at all would be eliminated and the standard of evidence needed to convince a reasonable person would be greatly diminished.
Tom,
I’m not really sure what you’re driving at with your 2 and 3. To be clear, I advocate a single standard for how we treat the likelihood of historical events.
Steve,
What documents, and what events? Obviously, it depends – some things are far better documented than others, offer physical evidence, etc. (We have scant historical documentation for Caesar, for instance, but what we do have are buttressed by things like Roman coins declaring Caesar “Emperor for life,” etc. The coins go a long way in fortifying the accounts we have about whether or not Caesar truly existed, who he was, etc. Please notice, though, that there is nothing extraordinary about Caesar or the events of his life within the context of my experiences, and I consider the historical claims about him in that context as well.)
Regarding David’s question, I imagine that the field will split on accepting historical documentation for extraordinary events; I believe that Christians are willing to accept historical documentation. I am ambivalent about whether this comes from being more credulous or a reasonable desire to be consistent, but I think that a positive response to David’s question entails some serious problems either way.
Good question, David, thanks.
I agree with your last paragraph: it would be extremely helpful to the historical case if there were also some good philosophical reason to consider this reasonable. One of the reasons I believe in the resurrection, which I will post later in this series, is that it makes such incredibly good sense. (If you doubt that, you might want to save your reaction for when I actually present the case for it.)
Suppose then that we did have reason to think it at least possible, philosophically speaking, that a yogi could have done what you have said. A what-if question like yours is difficult to answer definitively, for the options are so numerous. I would think a cumulative case would be the kind of thing I would look for, because I don’t see how we could expect to find a single smoking-gun proof.
(Speaking of smoking-gun proofs, by the way, sometimes I think you and some other skeptics here do use a smoking-gun proof approach to denying the resurrection: It can’t happen, it couldn’t have happened, therefore it didn’t happen!)
We have stipulated (for argument’s sake only) that there is philosophical reason to consider this act to have been possible. That’s step one of a cumulative case, and it’s quite essential. It allows us to consider the historical possibility, which we simply could not begin to do otherwise. (Your rejection of the philosophical possibility of the resurrection seems to have caused you to conclude there is nothing to investigate historically, it appears to me. But I’m digressing again.)
To judge whether this yogi once flew like Superman, then, I would have to think about what historical effects that should have had. Would it have sparked some kind of religious movement? Is there evidence that it did? I would look at reports of purported eyewitnesses and assess what axe they may have had to grind. What could they have gained by lying about it? I would certainly want to have a sense of how contemporary their reports are, and how contemporary our documents of their reports are, and if we did not have the originals, how reliable the copies of their documents were likely to be. Historians have standard ways of judging such things, as I’m sure you know. If some eyewitness reported seeing this and said it had no impact on his beliefs or his way of life, by the way, I would disbelieve that report. In other words, I would not expect to see an eyewitness account from a disinterested party. The person may well have been disinterested (like Matthew before he met Jesus, perhaps, or like Timothy or Silas probably were) or hostile (like Paul) before the fact of witnessing the event; but after the event I certainly would not expect that kind of neutrality. Not if they saw it with their own eyes.
Then I would want to pull together all the threads, especially to tie the philosophical one by which it was purportedly possible, together with the circumstances surrounding and following the event. If for example there was some religious implication to the philosophy, I would want to know how that was played out in the whole of that yogi’s life. I would want to know the same about the witnesses’ life.
It would help if the eyewitnesses’ documents could be corroborated externally. For example, suppose one of them took a ride on the yogi’s back during a flight, and saw the southern coast of Norway and reported the existence of a half-mile long beach there. That would help their credibility considerably. But even if they traveled on foot with the yogi and reported various geographical features and local customs accurately, that would add to their trustworthiness. (Note that in this regard Luke is considered a “historian of the first rank.”)
I’m rambling, of course, because there’s really no end to this what-if kind of speculation. Let me return the question to you now. Start with my one stipulation, please, and consider it in the case that it were not philosophically impossible. What might there be that could convince you it really happened?
Tony, have I missed your reply to this? I’ve been anticipating it for a couple of hours now, and you’ve written four comments in the intervening time without answering it.
What I’m driving at with my 2 and 3 is item 4 in that same comment. Item 4 says that anyone who would accept my 2 and my 3 is stacking the deck illegitimately against the resurrection. I’ve seen hints that you accept 2 and 3. Do you? If not, then how would you amend them?
Regarding my scenario, I just thought of a good example of historical evidence which would, alone, be sufficient to convince me of the flying yogi.
If Indian stories about him tell of him taking a several day long flying journey to a distant land over the ocean and included accurate description of New World places, flora, fauna, and peoples that someone in India at the time would not be expected to know and we also had accounts in the New World from the Aztecs of the arrival of this flying magic man then we’d be in possession of the sort of evidence that might well convince a reasonable person.
Of course, this doesn’t help Christian apologists any. It just highlights how underwhelming the historical evidence for their religion actually is.
Edit: I see Tom thought of something similar (his Norway comment). Too bad we have nothing like that regarding Jesus.
It also highlights how unaccepting you can be of normal historical processes as they relate to an event in history. Suppose this yogi’s range were limited to 5 miles. (I wouldn’t mind being able to fly 5 miles!) By your standard, even if he did it, and even if there were loads of witnesses attesting to it, you would have to conclude that he didn’t do it.
David, do you ever accuse Christians of being locked-in to their view of reality? Take a look at yourself.
(And now I’m going to have to pull out of this discussion and do some other things for a few hours.)
Tom,
Regarding your post 28, I don’t really understand your question.
Regarding transmission of written documents you suppose that the documents that survive are most likely to be those “that were written by the most respected, authoritative sources; written by eyewitnesses, and/or by close associates of the witnesses, and/or by the most highly respected Christian leaders of the time.”
I don’t agree. I believe the Christian documents most likely to survive would be those that best conform to the religious convictions of those who kept and transmitted those records. (I don’t believe it requires much imagination to guess what might also happen to those documents which do not.)
Start with my one stipulation, please, and consider it in the case that it were not philosophically impossible. What might there be that could convince you it really happened?
Actually, my position was not that it is philosophically impossible—only that we have no reason to think its possible. That may seem a subtle distinction but its one that’s important to my approach to epistemological questions.
Still, I can answer the question of what sort of evidence I think could convince a rational person. Its analogous to my example above.
Imagine that following the resurrection Jesus, stigmata and wounds in his side and all, appeared to people throughout the world in widely scattered and remote places and that accounts of this event persisted. From the remotest jungle villages of South America to Alaskan Inuits to Australian aborigines. And imagine that these stories include Jesus relating important Christian doctrines.
I think that would be pretty satisfactory as historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.
I could probably think of other examples if I tried.
But even assuming the supernatural to be real its still, apparently, very rare. So the standard of evidence must be pretty high.
Its similar to the standard of evidence for the claim that the ancients were visited by aliens. There’s nothing in my worldview that would say that this isn’t possible….but its none the less a extraordinary claim that I would need very strong evidence indeed to be convinced by. The Nazca lines just won’t do the job.
By your standard, even if he did it, and even if there were loads of witnesses attesting to it, you would have to conclude that he didn’t do it.
No, I would simply be unconvinced.
Not all historical events are confirmable. I can too easily think of scenarios in which a falsehood came to be widely related to easily be convinced by testimonials alone (we have ample evidence of how easily eyewitnesses can be duped and can exaggerate–so it makes no sense to do otherwise).
Yes, the standard I have for this claim is high, but its reasonable that it be high. If we did not employ high standards of evidence in regard to extraordinary claims we’d end up believing an awful lot of falsehoods.
Tony,
The same documents you think aren’t early enough and that lack multiple, independent attestation wrt the supernatural events they report.
Did Paul exist? Jesus? Was Jesus crucified? Did Paul visit Corinth? Etc, etc.
My reference to ‘telling’ is that your criteria for Jesus existing as a historical figure has everything in common with your criteria for Jesus dying and rising – except the latter has additional criteria added to it, which is expected.
What is ‘telling’ is that your complaint has nothing to do with early dating, corroboration or multiple, independent attestations – as you claim – because (watch as I creep out on my limb) you would trumpet these as reasons why the documents can be trusted wrt naturalistic events such as Paul a follower of Jesus, formerly known as Saul, existed in the first century.
SteveK,
Then your question is: “Do I think the New Testament is historically reliable such that we can trust them to tell us about naturalistic events of the first century?”
I do think that the vast majority of the New Testament documents are accurately dated by the consensus of scholars, give or take some mistakes and the margin of error. I think that they could misrepresent certain natural facts — the actual existence of a man named Jesus, or the place of Jesus’s birth, for instance. But they also need to conform sufficiently to natural events to lend them some credence to their contemporaries.
Your question makes it seem as if you have never had contact with a popular fabrication, such as an Elvis sighting. I believe that the NT documents tell us about as much about natural events (that there are convenience stores called 7-11’s, that people want to see Elvis alive, that people sometimes wear sunglasses, etc.) as do Elvis sightings.
What makes you think that an account must be all true or all false?
Tony, you wrote,
Note that my question began:
Now, you did say you didn’t really understand the question, and I’m wondering whether you really took that hypothetical situation into account when you answered. Let me then tentatively suppose that you did. You can correct it if I’m wrong. In that case I think your position implies the following.
Bear in mind that this is an argument that starts with a position stated for the sake of argument. In it I had hoped you would think through with me the kinds of things that could or would likely be true if the resurrection happened and was documented adequately at the time.
With that in mind, I think your answer to the hypothetical question I asked implies the following, step by step:
1. In the past there did exist documents providing independent attestation of the resurrection. They were written by early, authoritative sources, and they affirm that the resurrection happened. (Per the starting hypothetical assumption.)
2. During the first century and following, some set of religious convictions arose that may or may not have had some relation to these independent affirmations of the resurrection. (This seems to be a necessary concomitant of your position stated in comment 43.)
3. A variety of documents were produced that reflected a variety of religious beliefs. (This too seems to be a necessary concomitant of the same.)
4. Those who kept and transmitted those records kept the documents that supported their beliefs and destroyed (or at least tried to destroy) all others. (Restating your position expressed in comment 43.)
5. That selection process had little or nothing to do with historical fact; it was strictly a matter of supporting their own belief system as it stood at the time. (Restating your position expressed in comment 43.)
6. Now, as a matter of historical fact, what we ended up with were a set of documents that purport to be independent attestations of the resurrection. (The letters of Paul; the books Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and John; along with additional letters and writings of Peter, James, John, Jude, and the author of the book of Hebrews.)
7. The surviving records supported the beliefs (or at least advanced the agenda) of those who kept records. (From 4.)
8. Those records cannot be trusted as historical records (From 7 and 5.)
9. Therefore, though there does exist (hypothetically, of course, from 1) a set of documents that independently attest to and affirm the reality of the resurrection, the modern historian must conclude that they cannot be trusted historically. (From 1 and 8.)
10. Now there are two options: the hypothetical position in 1 is true, or it is false.
a. If hypothetical 1 is false, then the historian should obviously conclude there is no trustworthy set of documents that independently attest to and affirm the resurrection.
b. If hypothetical 1 is true, then the historian should conclude there is no trustworthy set of documents that independently attest to and affirm the resurrection. (From 9.)
It’s a matter of passing interest that the historian should (by your assumptions) come to the same opinion regardless of whether hypothetical 1 is true or false. That’s not the big problem, though.
The big problem in your position, if I have analyzed this correctly is this: we reached 10a and 10b without reference to any actual evidence. We concluded there are no documents independently attesting to and affirming the resurrection, and we drew that conclusion without even beginning to ask whether there is historical evidence of the existence of these documents.
You wrote earlier that Christians argue in a circle. But if my tentative analysis of your statement and its implications is correct, then you are guilty of letting your assumptions determine your conclusions, regardless of evidence. I don’t think that’s a position you would want to take. It’s as circular as the position you accuse Christians of taking.
But it’s your turn: is my analysis correct? If I missed something, please let me know.
Regarding the talk on the psychology of atheism that was previously alluded to:
I don’t know if there’s actually a strong correlation between atheism and the “defective father”. Although I’ve heard that claim many times I’ve not seen anything but anecdotal evidence in its favor. The article mentions some famous atheists who had problems with their fathers but having a difficult father is a far from unusual thing so it shouldn’t be difficult to find examples if one wants to make a argument for a correlation between X (any X!) and having a difficult father.
Even so, lets, for the sake of argument, assume that there IS such a correlation. Does this indicate that the atheist is rejecting God because they’re “projecting” onto their relationship with God the difficulties they had with their father?
In and of itself, no, it doesn’t. We must always bear in mind the oft-repeated mantra “correlation does not necessarily indicate causation”. It is not difficult to think of other possible reasons for such a correlation than the one Christian apologists so gleefully and smugly (in many cases) endorse.
For example, one’s father is probably the first major authority figure in one’s life. Having a difficult father may, in some individuals, result in a tendency to be less than complacent in accepting the legitimacy of claims made by authority figures. And the church is certainly another authority.
So, far from indicating an irrational motivation, this correlation may indicate a tendency to be less susceptible to one of the primary obstacles to rational thinking—belief based on authority over reason.
Am I saying this is necessarily the correct explanation of such a correlation (if it exists at all)? No. I’m simply pointing out the the argument made in this essay, while understandably attractive to those who wish to dismiss atheism, is far from being clearly the best explanation available.
Tom,
I am truly having trouble understanding what you are getting at with your question.
It sounds to me like you are asking me to, for the sake of argument, assume that the Resurrection occurred and then to imagine what evidence would then have accumulated and survived. I don’t really know what you mean by independent attestation. If you mean that contemporaries who did not witness the events of Jesus life would remark on the effect Jesus had on their contemporaries, then, yes I mean independent attestation. I don’t mean to imply that there should be contemporaries who truly witnessed miraculous events and remained unbelievers (independent).
If I understand your question correctly, if the historical events of Jesus’s life did in fact occur as described in the NT I’d assume that things like this would have accumulated:
– Those who witnessed the resurrection would enshrine the tomb.
– Within months of Jesus’ appearing before 500 or more eyewitnesses such a stir would have been created that no chronicler of the age would be able to avoid its mention.
– We would have far more than 4 anonymous accounts, written a generation of more after Jesus’s death, describing events surrounding Jesus that did not all conform to a standard template – e.g., there would be accounts of those who only witnessed one of his miracles (but did not know Jesus’ life story, for instance).
– Those who got the best look at him – the Jews of Ancient Judea, would not have been so overwhelmingly indifferent to his existence (after all, he fed 5,000 miraculously, healed the lame, even raised a dead man).
– Facts about Jesus’s life would not be based on mistranslations of the Bible.
– Artifacts, including the likenesses of Jesus, would exist – tokens, tablets, statues, drawings, anything that conveyed the likeness of the man who so many claimed appeared to perform miracles, as the resurrected one before them, etc.
All of these things must be explained away by the apologist, and I think one has to be credulous to not find the historical record for Jesus’s life as described in the NT to be painfully weak as a result of the need for these explanations.
Some example of independent attestation which, while they might not be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the resurrection, would at least serve to support the accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels would include non-Christians witnesses to:
–the empty tomb
–Pilate’s having tried and crucified a man named Jesus who was claimed to be the messiah.
–the (I’m going on memory here so correct me if I get any of these claims wrong) earthquakes, appearances of spirits of the dead and other strange events said in the gospels to have happened at the time of the death of Jesus.
I’m sure there are others one could think of but those are the first that come to mind.