 |
| Look! A Book! Reformed Egyptian, I'd say! |
"The Mormons have around eight eyewitness testimony accounts. Some even left the church, but held firmly to what they saw. Curious if any apologist have used Bayes Theorem for the Mormon evidence. Do any of you believe the eyewitness testimony from less than 200 years ago?"
His idea is that Christian bias aside, the evidence for Mormonism is much better than that for Christianity. After all, we apparently have eight pretty recent eyewitness testimonies to something -- not sure what -- which proves Mormon beliefs -- somehow -- but just scattered accounts in allegedly anonymous gospels from Heaven knows whom to back up Christianity.
I asked in response:
"Do you think the evidence for Mormonism is good? If so, are you planning to become a Mormon? If not, why not? And why do you bring it up?
Oddly, the questioner then admitted evidence for Mormonism was "crap." So he apparently has intuitive reasons for rejecting this wonderful recent Mormon evidence, which he either won't or can't express. But the comparison is not infrequently made. Maybe it's good to explain why the evidence for the Gospel account is not only not inferior to that for the Book of Mormon, calling the gospels "exponentially" more credible than the Book of Mormon would be far too modest. "Astronomically" is probably.
As with any historical question, the credibility of either event is some combination of prior probability conjoined with the weight of the evidence. Let's begin with the prior probability of the two claims, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon.
This will be a preliminary sketch, fit in before and after work.
I. Prior Probability of the Resurrection vs. Joseph Smith's story
Here's my article on the prior probability of the Resurrection. Let's first compare the facts I describe there to the story of Joseph Smith and the tables.
The prior probability of Jesus' being raised would seem to be a function of three issues: (1) Does God exist? (2) How likely would he be, even while keeping the laws of Nature generally in effect, as He obviously does, raise one person dramatically from the dead? (3) How likely would it be that that person be Jesus?
Of course I think Christianity is vastly superior in theology to the confused and shifting anthropomorphism of Mormonism, in which God starts out traditional in the Book of Mormon, then turns into a glorified man later on. But let us assume that the two faiths are equal on (1), the existence of God.
We'll also assume the probability that God would reveal Himself by raising someone from the dead, or by sending golden plates, is equal (2). (I certainly don't think it favors the golden plates, though that being given a holy book, or a talisman of gold, is a common motif in some folk religions, even in ancient Greek and modern English fiction.)
But for prior probability, let us ignore those superiorities of Christian orthodoxy, and focus on (3), the differences between Jesus of Nazareth and Joseph Smith and the stories told about or by them.
(1) Isaiah spoke of a Suffering Servant dying, yet then "seeing the Light of Life." Might not this and other passages in the OT be a signal pointing to God's intention not just in general, but specifically related to Jesus? Even so perceptive a man as Blaise Pascal have found many messianic expectations in the Old Testament that seemed to come true in Jesus, more than in the life of any other man or woman. All in all, the diffuse and complex web of Messianic expectations that seem to focus on Jesus (Pascal explains some of the reasons why), do seem to make it far more likely that he would be the one whom God raises.
As far as I know, no such clear prophecies from hundreds of years before about Joseph Smith finding golden plates have been uncovered. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
(2) The ancient Hindus wrote of God (Prajapati) sacrificing himself for the world. There are parallels in China and in other cultures (see my previous post), and mythological "dying and rising gods."
Again, some of these show remarkable parallels to the person and story of Jesus. If God were to intend his act as a sign not just to Israel, but to the whole world -- and the entire Old Testament underlines the universal character of God's redemptive plans -- then does not the fulfillment of such types in the life of Jesus greatly increase the chance that He would be the One prepared for all mankind -- and that God might give humanity a sign of hope and redemption in one such fell, miraculous deed?
There are folk stories of people finding books, but never (so far as I know) made of gold and in Reformed Egyptian. As Don Richardson records in Eternity In Their Hearts, some of those stories were indeed seemed to prepare locals for the coming of missionaries with Holy Bibles, as among several tribes in Burma.
The resurrection motifs fit Jesus better than any historical figure. The "found book" motif fits Christianity just as well as Mormonism, if not better.
(3) Lin Yutang, the great Chinese philosopher and man of letters, who compiled an anthology of Chinese and Indian literature, said that "no man has taught as Jesus taught." Many others on a similar intellectual plane concur. Is it not more likely that God would choose arguably the world's greatest teacher to make His point?
Mark Twain, the early contemporary of Lin, famously called the Book of Mormon "chloroform in print." I have tried to read the book myself, and understand what he meant. If Joseph Smith offered any great original new moral teachings or prophetic call against sin, I have not seen them yet. Why would God bother?
(4) Jesus was, as I show in The Truth Behind the New Atheism and elsewhere, at the center of many of the greatest reforms in history -- inspiring them, setting an example, more so than anyone. Is it not likely God would choose to raise such a person, to set an example for the human raise, and thus endorse that example of revolutionary and prophetic kindness? (Leading to important reforms around the world?)
No doubt conversion to Mormonism has brought positive changes to some lives, as has conversion to the Nation of Islam and even Jim Jones' cult. I am not aware of any more universal reforms, however, aside from the fall back into polygamy among many leaders of all three sects. The best one might say about Mormonism is that towns in Utah are generally well-kept. That is a long ways from the startling reforms observers like the Durants, Rodney Stark, Vishal Mangalwadi, and many others, have noted that Christianity ushered in.
If there is a God, it is easy to see his hand upon Jesus and his movement, much harder on Joseph Smith and the Utah church.
(5) Jesus was murdered by tyrants, backed by the Roman Empire, in a particularly savage way. If God is (as Lao Zi said of the Dao) on the side of the weak against powerful oppressors, would not raising him from the dead be a particularly good way of showing that?
Joseph Smith died in a shoot-out which was not elevating on either side. People were angry because he was stealing wives and lying about it, then attacking non-Mormons who told the truth. God seemed satisfied to leave the man dead, and so, perhaps, should we.
There five elements have to do with the prior probability of the resurrection. I haven't introduced any specificially Christian theology into this argument so far. If God exists, and if He wanted to do something dramatic in human history, that would change the world, give us hope, and show that he stands on the side of the righteous and oppressed, Jesus seems a far more plausible vehicle for such an act than Joseph Smith, to put it mildly.
II. Evidence for the Event
The Christian account of Jesus resurrecting is also far more credible as a story, than is the tale Joseph Smith's followers told of the Golden Tablets.
(6) A person you have known for years, and traveled with constantly and looked to as your guru, is easily recognizable. Gold plates may not be. One can take copper for gold in murky light, for instance.
(7) That Jesus was alive was verified by three senses: sight, hearing, and touch, and reportedly by hundreds of people.
That the writing on these "gold" plates was reformed Egyptian, or that it contained the words of the Book of Mormon, was not verifiable by anyone.
These two points alone make the claim that the Mormon evidence is superior to the Christian evidence, absurd. It would be hard to convince Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and the whole Kennedy family that you are JFK, come back to life, I bet. But I can show most Americans a random book in Chinese, and tell them it's a Tibetan holy book, and probably convince many of them.
In fact, Smith's eyewitnesses saw nothing supernatural at all. How can the claim that they saw a shiny book be construed as in any way confirming the truth of Mormonism?
Meeting your best friend after he died is something entirely different.
(8) Jesus was, at least, the greatest moral teacher in history. Joseph Smith was a con man, a liar (even to his wife, about his other wives), a gold-digger in the literal sense, and an all-around creep. And you have to ask me why the story told by the former's disciples is more credible than that told (vaguely) by the latter?
(9) More than a hundred facts recounted by Luke in Acts have been confirmed from other sources, while only a relatively few have been credibly questioned. The proportions seem reversed in the case of the Book of Mormon. Acts and the gospels are clearly very early sources for the life of Jesus and the early Church. By stark contrast, The Book of Mormon has nothing whatsoever to do with ancient Meso-American civilization, except by accidence.
(10) DNA studies show that Native Americans are not closely related to Jews. That ruins the whole Book of Mormon story. The New Testament suffers no such disconfirmation.
(11) We have four gospels, which overlap some, but also preserve a strong measure of independence ("Q," "M," "L," John). The Book of Mormon comes as a single book, with no evidence of independence.
How much stronger is a story with four (largely) independent sources than a story with just one? As with many other points in this summary, the answer is "exponentially." Multiply all the exponents together, and you get "astronomically."
(12) The gospels describe events which occurred within living memory; the Book of Mormon, ancient events. Historical claims from people who were alive when the events happened, are many orders of magnitude more credible than claims from people who lived a thousand years later, with no intervening sources, all things being equal.
(13) The gospels were written in Greek with some Aramaic phrases scattered through them, both languages spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean where the events they record allegedly occurred. Jesus himself certainly spoke Aramaic, quite likely Greek as well. Many texts have been discovered in these languages, especially Greek. No confirming "reformed Egyptian" texts have been discovered from the Americas. (Or from anywhere else, though of course languages all evolve.)
(14) And of course MMLJ were much closer in culture as well as time and space to the events they record, than Joseph Smith was.
(15) The Book of Mormon is written (or "translated") in(to) 19th Century Faux-King James American English. The New Testament was written in common marketplace Greek of the 1st Century. Forgive historians for finding the latter far more credible as records of 1st Century Palestine than the former is of Aztec or Mayan country, on linguistic grounds alone.
One could go on beating this poor tortured horse till the cows come home. In Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels, I described 30 traits that the gospels share, which make them credible sources. One could call them "Hallmarks of Historicity." Probably another 20-24 of which I haven't mentioned yet, which would further support the historicity of the gospels over that of the Book of Mormon.
But multiply fifteen exponents of this sort, and we already have exponential superiority for the gospels as historical accounts, over the Book of Mormon.
As for the Resurrection itself, see this wonderful piece by Tim & Lydia McGrew.
Skeptics are free to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, despite all the arguments in its favor. But let's not engage in frivolity. If you claim that the Book of Mormon has superior evidence to the gospels, because eight people claim to have seen shiny flat surfaces with funny writing on them, you're saying more about your own silly state of mind than about any other facet of reality.
Of course I think Christianity is vastly superior in theology to the confused and shifting anthropomorphism of Mormonism, in which God starts out traditional in the Book of Mormon, then turns into a glorified man later on. But let us assume that the two faiths are equal on (1), the existence of God.
We'll also assume the probability that God would reveal Himself by raising someone from the dead, or by sending golden plates, is equal (2). (I certainly don't think it favors the golden plates, though that being given a holy book, or a talisman of gold, is a common motif in some folk religions, even in ancient Greek and modern English fiction.)
But for prior probability, let us ignore those superiorities of Christian orthodoxy, and focus on (3), the differences between Jesus of Nazareth and Joseph Smith and the stories told about or by them.
(1) Isaiah spoke of a Suffering Servant dying, yet then "seeing the Light of Life." Might not this and other passages in the OT be a signal pointing to God's intention not just in general, but specifically related to Jesus? Even so perceptive a man as Blaise Pascal have found many messianic expectations in the Old Testament that seemed to come true in Jesus, more than in the life of any other man or woman. All in all, the diffuse and complex web of Messianic expectations that seem to focus on Jesus (Pascal explains some of the reasons why), do seem to make it far more likely that he would be the one whom God raises.
As far as I know, no such clear prophecies from hundreds of years before about Joseph Smith finding golden plates have been uncovered. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
(2) The ancient Hindus wrote of God (Prajapati) sacrificing himself for the world. There are parallels in China and in other cultures (see my previous post), and mythological "dying and rising gods."
Again, some of these show remarkable parallels to the person and story of Jesus. If God were to intend his act as a sign not just to Israel, but to the whole world -- and the entire Old Testament underlines the universal character of God's redemptive plans -- then does not the fulfillment of such types in the life of Jesus greatly increase the chance that He would be the One prepared for all mankind -- and that God might give humanity a sign of hope and redemption in one such fell, miraculous deed?
There are folk stories of people finding books, but never (so far as I know) made of gold and in Reformed Egyptian. As Don Richardson records in Eternity In Their Hearts, some of those stories were indeed seemed to prepare locals for the coming of missionaries with Holy Bibles, as among several tribes in Burma.
The resurrection motifs fit Jesus better than any historical figure. The "found book" motif fits Christianity just as well as Mormonism, if not better.
(3) Lin Yutang, the great Chinese philosopher and man of letters, who compiled an anthology of Chinese and Indian literature, said that "no man has taught as Jesus taught." Many others on a similar intellectual plane concur. Is it not more likely that God would choose arguably the world's greatest teacher to make His point?
Mark Twain, the early contemporary of Lin, famously called the Book of Mormon "chloroform in print." I have tried to read the book myself, and understand what he meant. If Joseph Smith offered any great original new moral teachings or prophetic call against sin, I have not seen them yet. Why would God bother?
(4) Jesus was, as I show in The Truth Behind the New Atheism and elsewhere, at the center of many of the greatest reforms in history -- inspiring them, setting an example, more so than anyone. Is it not likely God would choose to raise such a person, to set an example for the human raise, and thus endorse that example of revolutionary and prophetic kindness? (Leading to important reforms around the world?)
No doubt conversion to Mormonism has brought positive changes to some lives, as has conversion to the Nation of Islam and even Jim Jones' cult. I am not aware of any more universal reforms, however, aside from the fall back into polygamy among many leaders of all three sects. The best one might say about Mormonism is that towns in Utah are generally well-kept. That is a long ways from the startling reforms observers like the Durants, Rodney Stark, Vishal Mangalwadi, and many others, have noted that Christianity ushered in.
If there is a God, it is easy to see his hand upon Jesus and his movement, much harder on Joseph Smith and the Utah church.
(5) Jesus was murdered by tyrants, backed by the Roman Empire, in a particularly savage way. If God is (as Lao Zi said of the Dao) on the side of the weak against powerful oppressors, would not raising him from the dead be a particularly good way of showing that?
Joseph Smith died in a shoot-out which was not elevating on either side. People were angry because he was stealing wives and lying about it, then attacking non-Mormons who told the truth. God seemed satisfied to leave the man dead, and so, perhaps, should we.
There five elements have to do with the prior probability of the resurrection. I haven't introduced any specificially Christian theology into this argument so far. If God exists, and if He wanted to do something dramatic in human history, that would change the world, give us hope, and show that he stands on the side of the righteous and oppressed, Jesus seems a far more plausible vehicle for such an act than Joseph Smith, to put it mildly.
II. Evidence for the Event
The Christian account of Jesus resurrecting is also far more credible as a story, than is the tale Joseph Smith's followers told of the Golden Tablets.
(6) A person you have known for years, and traveled with constantly and looked to as your guru, is easily recognizable. Gold plates may not be. One can take copper for gold in murky light, for instance.
(7) That Jesus was alive was verified by three senses: sight, hearing, and touch, and reportedly by hundreds of people.
That the writing on these "gold" plates was reformed Egyptian, or that it contained the words of the Book of Mormon, was not verifiable by anyone.
These two points alone make the claim that the Mormon evidence is superior to the Christian evidence, absurd. It would be hard to convince Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and the whole Kennedy family that you are JFK, come back to life, I bet. But I can show most Americans a random book in Chinese, and tell them it's a Tibetan holy book, and probably convince many of them.
In fact, Smith's eyewitnesses saw nothing supernatural at all. How can the claim that they saw a shiny book be construed as in any way confirming the truth of Mormonism?
Meeting your best friend after he died is something entirely different.
(8) Jesus was, at least, the greatest moral teacher in history. Joseph Smith was a con man, a liar (even to his wife, about his other wives), a gold-digger in the literal sense, and an all-around creep. And you have to ask me why the story told by the former's disciples is more credible than that told (vaguely) by the latter?
(9) More than a hundred facts recounted by Luke in Acts have been confirmed from other sources, while only a relatively few have been credibly questioned. The proportions seem reversed in the case of the Book of Mormon. Acts and the gospels are clearly very early sources for the life of Jesus and the early Church. By stark contrast, The Book of Mormon has nothing whatsoever to do with ancient Meso-American civilization, except by accidence.
(10) DNA studies show that Native Americans are not closely related to Jews. That ruins the whole Book of Mormon story. The New Testament suffers no such disconfirmation.
(11) We have four gospels, which overlap some, but also preserve a strong measure of independence ("Q," "M," "L," John). The Book of Mormon comes as a single book, with no evidence of independence.
How much stronger is a story with four (largely) independent sources than a story with just one? As with many other points in this summary, the answer is "exponentially." Multiply all the exponents together, and you get "astronomically."
(12) The gospels describe events which occurred within living memory; the Book of Mormon, ancient events. Historical claims from people who were alive when the events happened, are many orders of magnitude more credible than claims from people who lived a thousand years later, with no intervening sources, all things being equal.
(13) The gospels were written in Greek with some Aramaic phrases scattered through them, both languages spoken in the Eastern Mediterranean where the events they record allegedly occurred. Jesus himself certainly spoke Aramaic, quite likely Greek as well. Many texts have been discovered in these languages, especially Greek. No confirming "reformed Egyptian" texts have been discovered from the Americas. (Or from anywhere else, though of course languages all evolve.)
(14) And of course MMLJ were much closer in culture as well as time and space to the events they record, than Joseph Smith was.
(15) The Book of Mormon is written (or "translated") in(to) 19th Century Faux-King James American English. The New Testament was written in common marketplace Greek of the 1st Century. Forgive historians for finding the latter far more credible as records of 1st Century Palestine than the former is of Aztec or Mayan country, on linguistic grounds alone.
One could go on beating this poor tortured horse till the cows come home. In Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels, I described 30 traits that the gospels share, which make them credible sources. One could call them "Hallmarks of Historicity." Probably another 20-24 of which I haven't mentioned yet, which would further support the historicity of the gospels over that of the Book of Mormon.
But multiply fifteen exponents of this sort, and we already have exponential superiority for the gospels as historical accounts, over the Book of Mormon.
As for the Resurrection itself, see this wonderful piece by Tim & Lydia McGrew.
Skeptics are free to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, despite all the arguments in its favor. But let's not engage in frivolity. If you claim that the Book of Mormon has superior evidence to the gospels, because eight people claim to have seen shiny flat surfaces with funny writing on them, you're saying more about your own silly state of mind than about any other facet of reality.
24 comments:
"As far as I know, no such clear prophecies from hundreds of years before about Joseph Smith finding golden plates have been uncovered."
There is an unproven assumption in this statement. The only Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) scholars who believe that there are "clear" prophecies about Jesus in the OT are Christians. The overwhelming majority of JEWISH Bible scholars do not believe that there is even ONE prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. So the best that one can say is that there are possible, contested prophecies about Jesus and none for Joseph Smith.
"If God were to intend his act as a sign not just to Israel, but to the whole world -- and the entire Old Testament underlines the universal character of God's redemptive plans -- then does not the fulfillment of such types [dying and rising gods] in the life of Jesus greatly increase the chance that He would be the One prepared for all mankind -- and that God might give humanity a sign of hope and redemption in one such fell, miraculous deed?"
So what you are saying is that if a particular religion's central supernatural claim is consistent with the mythology of numerous ancient cultures, then there is a higher probability that that supernatural claim is true than a religion whose central supernatural claim is NOT consistent with the mythology of numerous ancient cultures? So Christianity is the fulfillment of ancient pagan mythologies? I thought that most Christian apologists boast about the uniqueness of Christianity and that it is Christianity's uniqueness that increases the probability that Christianity is the one, true religion. So this claim too is contested and doesn't seem to be very strong evidence for your claim of superiority for traditional Christianity over Mormonism.
"Lin Yutang, the great Chinese philosopher and man of letters, who compiled an anthology of Chinese and Indian literature, said that "no man has taught as Jesus taught." Many others on a similar intellectual plane concur. Is it not more likely that God would choose arguably the world's greatest teacher to make His point?"
So one non-Christian expert (along with many unnamed "others) say that Jesus was the greatest teacher so therefore Jesus MUST be God, the Creator of the universe, Lord of heaven and earth??? Seems like a stretch.
If we are going to quote Mark Twain, how about this one:
"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
"Jesus was, as I show in The Truth Behind the New Atheism and elsewhere, at the center of many of the greatest reforms in history -- inspiring them, setting an example, more so than anyone. Is it not likely God would choose to raise such a person, to set an example for the human raise, and thus endorse that example of revolutionary and prophetic kindness? (Leading to important reforms around the world?)"
If the God of the universe is the loving, benevolent Being that Christians claim he is, why didn't he raise someone from the dead who knew something about disease prevention, good farming techniques, antibiotics, cold storage for food, and vaccinations? Billions of people have suffered and died since Jesus' time, waiting for HUMANS to introduce these life-saving innovations, not God. So I would suggest that instead of marveling about Jesus' teaching on loving your neighbor as yourself, we should marvel at his LACK of teaching on how to prevent your neighbor from dying from common bacterial infections.
"Jesus was murdered by tyrants, backed by the Roman Empire, in a particularly savage way. If God is (as Lao Zi said of the Dao) on the side of the weak against powerful oppressors, would not raising him from the dead be a particularly good way of showing that?"
In much of the world, the weak still suffer under the oppression of the rich and powerful. According to Jews, the true messiah will bring universal peace and harmony. Jesus did not bring universal peace and harmony. The last 2,000 years have been the bloodiest in human history. The claim that Jesus will bring universal peace and harmony IN THE FUTURE is unprovable.
"In fact, Smith's eyewitnesses saw nothing supernatural at all. How can the claim that they saw a shiny book be construed as in any way confirming the truth of Mormonism? Meeting your best friend after he died is something entirely different."
Mormons have four signed affidavits of known men living in the nineteenth century who claimed to have seen a supernatural being (an angel) at the same time and place.
Christians have zero, confirmed, eyewitness testimony of anyone seeing a supernatural being. The majority of NT scholars doubt or question the eyewitness authorship of the four books who tell the story of Jesus. And contrary to conservative Christian claims, this scholarly consensus cannot be blamed on a bias against the supernatural. The overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars doubt the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. These Roman Catholic Bible scholars very much believe in the reality of the supernatural and the reality of miracles.
"DNA studies show that Native Americans are not closely related to Jews. That ruins the whole Book of Mormon story. The New Testament suffers no such disconfirmation."
If it is true that Christianity has zero confirmed eyewitness source for the events which allegedly occurred in the days shortly following Jesus' death, the believability and probability of Christianity's central supernatural claim is drastically reduced.
"We have four gospels, which overlap some, but also preserve a strong measure of independence ("Q," "M," "L," John). The Book of Mormon comes as a single book, with no evidence of independence. How much stronger is a story with four (largely) independent sources than a story with just one? As with many other points in this summary, the answer is "exponentially." Multiply all the exponents together, and you get "astronomically." "
The majority of NT scholars acknowledge that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are largely dependent on the first gospel written, Mark. At least 50% of modern Bible scholars believe that the author of John was at least aware of the previous Gospels and used these Gospels as a template for his story. To call the gospels "independent" sources is a big stretch.
"There is an unproven assumption in this statement. The only Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) scholars who believe that there are "clear" prophecies about Jesus in the OT are Christians. The overwhelming majority of JEWISH Bible scholars do not believe that there is even ONE prophecy about Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. So the best that one can say is that there are possible, contested prophecies about Jesus and none for Joseph Smith."
There are always unproven assumptions behind every statement. Communication is impossible without them.
But even some Jews have read Isaiah 52-53 and said, "That has to be Jesus!" and then gone looking for a rabbi to explain why it isn't. Sometimes the rabbi hasn't been able to persuade them, and despite sociological barriers (which are high, considering the history of Judaism and Christianity) they have converted. I've talked with such.
In any case, the gospels describe an intricate pattern of fulfillment that is unique, so far as I know, in all the history of religion. I describe it in part of my doctoral dissertation. It is no doubt possible to come up with "answers" to that body of evidence, but it certainly and remarkably sets the Gospel apart from Mormonism.
I'll look at the rest of your challenges later; thanks for posting.
"In any case, the gospels describe an intricate pattern of fulfillment that is unique, so far as I know, in all the history of religion. I describe it in part of my doctoral dissertation. It is no doubt possible to come up with "answers" to that body of evidence, but it certainly and remarkably sets the Gospel apart from Mormonism."
Is this a real truism or a truism only in the minds of biased Christians?
It is odd that if the Gospels truly describe an intricate pattern of numerous, highly accurate predictions of future events that not one public university history text book in the world includes this statistic. Even Christian NT scholars are divided as to the existence of fulfilled prophecies in the Gospels. Some Christian NT scholars agree that the author of the Gospel of Matthew's use of the "virgin birth prophecy" in Isaiah 7 is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew text. Bottom line: The existence of fulfilled prophecies in the Gospels is disputed. The dispute is so significant that no public university history textbook lists these prophecies as accurate predictions of future events.
Is it possible that the authors of the Gospels invented stories about Jesus (a virgin birth, for instance), then tied these invented stories to OT prophecies, all for theological or literary purposes, never meaning for them to be understood as historical facts? In other words, the intricate pattern of fulfillment that you see is a purposeful invention; not to deceive anyone, but to "further the Gospel".
No one believes that the authors of the Gospels were writing history texts. They were writing works of religious evangelization, using an ancient Greco-Roman literary genre that allowed for embellishments of the facts. The Gospels are beautiful works of religious literature. They are not history texts. Let's not hold them to a standard which the authors never intended to meet.
"Is this a real truism or a truism only in the minds of biased Christians?"
What kind of rude and patronizing comment is that? I am a scholar, Gary. I made a scholarly argument and defended it to other scholars successfully. Your personal attack on me in regard to an argument you have not even read, show that you, at any rate, are no scholar, able to suspend judgment until you have read an argument.
"It is odd that if the Gospels truly describe an intricate pattern of numerous, highly accurate predictions of future events that not one public university history text book in the world includes this statistic."
Again you distort my words with snark and no apparent desire to understand. That's not what I said. And are you claiming to have read all the world's university history texts?
"Even Christian NT scholars are divided as to the existence of fulfilled prophecies in the Gospels. Some Christian NT scholars agree that the author of the Gospel of Matthew's use of the "virgin birth prophecy" in Isaiah 7 is based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew text."
Again, both your logic and your facts are a sloppy mess. Yes, that one text is disputed. But there are far clearly prophecies. And you are just guessing at what MY arguments are -- flailing without a clue -- and pretending to land blows when you don't even know where I am standing.
Why do you play games like that? Stop pretending. You're just making a fool out of yourself.
More of the same:
"Is it possible that the authors of the Gospels invented stories about Jesus (a virgin birth, for instance), then tied these invented stories to OT prophecies, all for theological or literary purposes, never meaning for them to be understood as historical facts?"
Of course it's possible. Many things are possible. It is also possible that you are an alien posting from Alpha Centari.
But again, you don't even know what my arguments are, yet you set your whole little fleet to attack a position which you haven't even scouted out yet. Bang! Bang! Whoops! You just blew up a log in the water 40 miles from where my ship is!
"In other words, the intricate pattern of fulfillment that you see is a purposeful invention; not to deceive anyone, but to "further the Gospel"."
This is so childish.
"No one believes that the authors of the Gospels were writing history texts. They were writing works of religious evangelization, using an ancient Greco-Roman literary genre that allowed for embellishments of the facts. The Gospels are beautiful works of religious literature. They are not history texts. Let's not hold them to a standard which the authors never intended to meet."
This is just confused. They were writing bioi, or Greek biography, as scholars generally do admit now. Of course that's not history. They make it exceedingly clear that they intend to tell the truth about Jesus' life: have you never even read the preface to Luke, or the final chapters of John?
I demonstrate that dozens of traits within the gospels mark them strongly as historical texts. No doubt you'll now attack those arguments, as well, without bothering to find out what they are, or what weight they may carry. All too typical.
I apologize if my comments came across as insulting and "snarky". They were not meant to be. Unfortunately, one cannot hear the tone in one's voice in a written comment.
In response to your comment on prophecies: Could you name one Biblical prophecy that the majority of historians see as accurately fulfilled?
Me: "Is it possible that the authors of the Gospels invented stories about Jesus (a virgin birth, for instance), then tied these invented stories to OT prophecies, all for theological or literary purposes, never meaning for them to be understood as historical facts?"
You: Of course it's possible. Many things are possible. It is also possible that you are an alien posting from Alpha Centari.
Have you read highly respected Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown? In his two volume book, "Death of the Messiah", he points out several stories in the Gospels that he believes are most probably literary/theological inventions. NT Wright believes that the author of Acts invented details about Paul's conversion experience on the Road to Damascus. And the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars believe that the Dead Saints Being Shaken out of the Graves story and the Guards at the Tomb of Jesus story are theological inventions. I'm just suggesting that the Virgin Birth story and possibly others are of the same nature. I'm not suggesting that EVERYTHING written in the Gospels is fiction.
As to the Old Testament, the Dual Monarchy part seems to be legitimate history, but Kings David and Solomon are at least half-legendary, and the history before that seems as fictional as Greek mythology. There aren't any accounts of the Exodus in Egyptian records, not even some Baghdad-Bob version. By that, I mean versions like Egyptians bragging about their triumph over the Sea Peoples in the Nile Delta, and not in their New Kingdom Levantine empire, and Sennacherib's propagandists bragging about how their siege of Jerusalem kept its king holed up there like a caged bird. The Bible tells us that an angel zapped his troops, and I suspect that they came down with some disease and the survivors decided to return home.
As to the New Testament, though outright Jesus mythicism continues to be rare, something close to it is a common position. "There was a historical Jesus Christ, though what we see in the Gospels is mostly mythology invented about him by his followers." Something like Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia being turned into some messiah figure by the Rastafarian sect of Jamaica. Or King Arthur, who was not mentioned very much until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him in great detail.
Gary: Yes, that's easy enough. God promised Abraham that through his seed, all the nations of the world would be blessed. And Jesus promised that the Gospel would spread around the world. Those were both remarkable prophecies in their time, and have been pretty well fulfilled.
Loren: I'm not interested in defending the historicity of the OT, and have not researched it, nor do I care to.
The two analogies to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels fall apart on dozens of grounds, all favoring the historicity of the Gospel record, sometimes spectacularly. I'm sure you can name a few of those grounds without my pointing them out to you.
As to the bioi argument, that does not demonstrate historicity one bit. Certainly not the notion that one could go back in time in a time machine and watch every event in the Gospels happen as the Gospels describe those events. Like Jesus Christ cursing a fig tree and the fig tree soon dying.
Plutarch's Parallel Lives has bioi of Theseus, Romulus, Lycurgus, and Numa Pompilius, yet we usually dismiss Theseus and Romulus as mythology, and we consider the accounts of Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius to have dubious reliability. Do we believe that there was a historical Theseus? That he had two biological fathers whose semen mixed together? King Aegeus of Athens and the god Poseidon. Do we believe that there was a historical Romulus? That he was the son of a god and a virgin? (Where have we heard that before?)
Loren: I didn't say the fact that the gospels fit the genre of Greek biography shows that they were historically accurate, did I? That's not one of my arguments.
Where have I heard the argument against the gospels from Romulus before? Richard Carrier, that's where. I give his argument a fair hearing, then take it out and nuke it and bury the ashes in Jesus is No Myth. Carrier "responded" by misrepresenting almost everything about my book that he mentioned, calling me names, and wishing my death, but not by refuting any of my substantive points (which he almost never quoted.)
Good book. I recommend it to you.
DBM: God promised Abraham that through his seed, all the nations of the world would be blessed. And Jesus promised that the Gospel would spread around the world. Those were both remarkable prophecies in their time, and have been pretty well fulfilled.
Gary: Many historians consider Abraham to be a fictional character in ancient Hebrew folklore. So that "prophesy" is contested. The alleged statement by Jesus was allegedly said after his alleged resurrection. Again, a contested prophesy. The fact that Christianity is as widespread as it is is due more to Emperor Constantine than to Jesus.
"I didn't say the fact that the gospels fit the genre of Greek biography shows that they were historically accurate, did I? That's not one of my arguments." How convenient. That implication is what everybody who mentions this argument seem to make.
Livy's History of Rome contains the Romulus-and-Remus story, and it was written before Jesus Christ was born. It also contains some legitimate history, like of the Scipio family. That family's tomb survives, and has inscriptions mentioning some of that family's members. So if Livy is reliable about the Scipio family, he must also be reliable about Romulus and Remus, right?
It's "convenient" that I didn't make an argument which you attack? Inconvenient, I would say, for your attack, thus rendered irrelevant. Maybe you need to read more carefully next time. I am not everyone else.
"So if Livy is reliable about the Scipio family, he must also be reliable about Romulus and Remus, right?"
Wrong, of course. Apparently you'd rather attack dumb straw men than deal with my actual historical arguments.
"Many historians consider Abraham to be a fictional character in ancient Hebrew folklore. So that "prophesy" is contested."
No, only its context. It is quite possible to fulfill a prophecy given in a piece of fiction.
"The alleged statement by Jesus was allegedly said after his alleged resurrection. Again, a contested prophesy."
You're changing the terms of your challenge. Here was the original:
"Could you name one Biblical prophecy that the majority of historians see as accurately fulfilled?"
The original said nothing about its context, only whether it was biblical. And the prophesy certainly occurred long, long before it was fulfilled.
"The fact that Christianity is as widespread as it is is due more to Emperor Constantine than to Jesus."
Nonsense. Read Stark's The Rise of Christianity. Constantine had little or no positive effect on the growth of Christianity. Anyway, the prophesy was certainly written centuries before Constantine, so you are conceding my point.
Post a Comment