What is often forgotten, though, is that the probability of an event requires relating two things: (1) the evidence for that event (which is what we usually think of), but also (2) the prior probability that the event would occur.
For example, suppose I make the claim, "I just flipped an unweighted coin twenty times, and got all heads!"
What is the likelihood that I am telling the truth? Some combination of two factors: (a) the odds of achieving this result, which (on exactly 20 flips) would be 2^20, or about one in a million, and (b) the odds that I am lying or mistaken. (Maybe I wasn't paying close attention, or maybe both the coin and my eyes are old, and the two sides of the coin look the same to me. Or maybe the coin is, after all, weighted, or perhaps I am suffering a drug-addled hallucination from years of playing Russian Roulette in a smoke-filled bar in Saigon.)
If I say, "I flipped a coin three times in a row, and got all heads," you would likely nod your head and go back to your Kindle. If I claim to have done so 300 times in a row, you would have every right to be extremely skeptical. At some point, the improbability of the event will tip the balance against the improbability (I hope most readers will agree) of various perhaps attenuated "liar" or "lunatic" hypothesis. In the technical, arcane language of legal philosophy, you "smell a rat."
Prior probability is often overlooked, or under-emphasized, in popular discussion of the Resurrection of Jesus. Someone like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, or Josh McDowell (for the old school) will argue that the historical evidence for the resurrecion is actually very good. Then skeptics will try to undermine that claim.
The Christian will generally win that argument, because as historical evidence goes, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus IS remarkably good. The main challenge may be to get the audience to grasp the value of historical evidence, with our bias for forensic or other "scientific" evidence. But given a fair appreciation of historical method, and a competent description of the evidence, this case can easily be made. If all that were being asserted were that St. Peter caught a very big fish that day, the event would be universally admitted as having been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
But then the skeptic, and maybe even the Christian (even Alvin Plantinga, in some moods), will go home and ask himself, "Yeah, but can you really prove something so contrary to human experience as a resurrection from the dead, from any amount of historical evidence?"
Indeed, read the Book of Acts closely, and it's clear that this objection goes back at least to St. Paul's sermon before the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry that met on Mars Hill in Athens. "God did what? Go on! Get out of here!" But up to that point, they were listening carefully to Paul's more philosophical and moral arguments for theism.
A frequent visitor to this site, the Irish skeptic Brian Barrington, once posted a tongue-in-cheek argument against the Resurrection based on a "prior probability" against it of 100 billion to one.
He didn't explain how he got that figure. But I think what he based it on, was the number of people who have lived on Planet Earth over the past two thousand years. The assumption, following Hume, seems to be that experience of an event should be deemed proportional to the frequency of similiar events. If 100 billion people have died without rising, there should be a presumption against any one person rising from the dead, of 100 billion to one.
I pointed out that in fact, no one has any historical evidence about the post mortem fate of the vast majority of human beings since Jesus. Some other resurrections HAVE been alleged -- even in the pages of the New Testament. So even supposing that resurrections strike people as randomly as lightening or meteorites, still the ratio of people whom we know in a strong historical sense have not have risen from the dead, to those about whom we might have some evidence to the contrary (say Lazarus), is much less than 100 billion to one.
But of course no one claims Jesus' resurrection was just a matter of luck. Christians, and even the occasional Jewish scholar who buys into the story, never suppose Jesus won the resurrection ticket in a random cosmic lottery. On any reasonable account, if God exists and acts in the world, Jesus was far more likely to rise from the dead than, say, Al Capone, or even Joe the Plumber.
"Prior to what?" The prior probability of the resurrection is the probability that Jesus would rise, considered prior to the historical evidence for or against his resurrection. My claim is that there are other facts -- including some which no reasonable person denies -- that vastly increase the probability that Jesus might be resurrected, as opposed to one of the billions of other people who have lived in historical times.
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 -- including entropy in general and human death in particular -- raise one person dramatically from the dead? (3) How likely would it be that that person be Jesus?
(1) The probability that God exists will approach one for many people, zero for others, with other people falling at all spots in between. But the arguments are complicated, and it would be foolish to begin arguing about the resurrection by first trying to solve so involved an issue, that is never solved to everyone's satisfaction. Theists have arguments for the existence of God that are independent of the resurrection of Jesus. If we begin with belief in God, or the strong probability that God exists, BEFORE discussing the resurrection, we will not be begging the question for ourselves, but might be begging it for non-theist readers. And we will be leaving out one plausible reason for believing in God. So what should we do?
One might deal with the "God question" in one of two ways. First, we might "compromise" by taking the existence of God at 50-50, just to see how the rest of the argument works. Or second, we might make the existence of God a variable in the equation, and use the resurrection of Jesus as an argument to faith in God. Both solutions are ways of bracketting this issue, and perhaps coming back to it later, better-informed.
Let's go with the first option, here. I think 50-50 is a fair number to assign, for the following reason. People are intelligent creatures, but also prone to fooling themselves at times. (Including, of course, myself, and the reader.) We may have both worked over the evidence for faith many times, and come to different conclusions. So who is really fooling himself, or herself? We can work over the evidence for decades, and both walk away thinking the other person is missing the point.
In this case, I think it is valid to tentatively make a sort Ad Populum argument, as a short-cut. Let us appeal to what society at large, our friends and neighbors and humanity in general, believe, as a temporary control over our own opinions.
Most people believe in God. Far fewer extremely well-educated people claim to believe in God. Maybe that's because they're more intelligent, better education, and know more about, say, evolution or the Big Bang. On the other hand, the Bible predicts that "the wise" are liable to becoming proud and self-dependent, and fail to recognize their need for God. The Lord "opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Though of course not all believers LOOK gracious, and some intelligent skeptics seem highly sincere. Furthermore, miracles and other signs of God's reality might be more likely to occur among those who are needy, if the Bible is any guide, not among the comfortable.
So there are competing explanations for atheism (I give several others in The Truth Behind the New Atheism), and in some societies, Christians seem more heavily represented among the highly educated than among lower classes.
So I think a fair shortcut to reworking all the arguments, which we can't do for a premise here, is to compromise between classes and cultures, our own intuitions and arguments and Vox Populi, and call it (for the sake of the argument) a 50-50 shot.
Again, if you don't like this figure, don't worry -- the evidence of the resurrection may cause it to increase.
(2) The likelihood that God, should he exist, would act in this one particular way, by raising someone from the dead, is also hard to be sure about, since we are unable to read the mind of God. (Of course, it does not follow that He cannot tell us His own mind, which Christians claim He has, in the Bible, for instance, and perhaps in other ways.) That God would do such a thing, does not seem wildly unlikely, though, given: (a) God is, by hypothesis, good, and would want us to have hope; (b) God created Nature, and therefore presumably has good reason to allow the regularities that we call "natural law" to be manifest most of the time; (c) Much of the offense skeptics take at miracles seems to be aesthetic; it seems inartistic, crude, etc, for the laws to be set aside too easily; (d) Yet one can see intuitive sense in God offering some dramatic sign (as it is called throughout the Bible), some "eucatastrophe" as J. R. R. Tolkien put it, some "good disaster" by which (to cite his friend C. S. Lewis) the "laws of nature would begin to work backwards," so that Entropy would not have the last word, and the "sting of death" be drawn, may seem like amazing good news, presumptuous to assume, but hardly out of character for a good God. Raising someone from the dead, at a key juncture in history, might well be part of His plan.
It seems presumptuous (aside from His revelation, which is in dispute) to put a number on "what God would do." But by the same token, it would also be presumptuous to assume dogmatically that He would not do such a thing.
This question, too, is difficult to solve decisively in a short discussion. But it does not seem an overwhelmingly unlikely idea a priori. Only a little evidence that this might, in fact, be God's will, would seem enough to make it sufficiently credible.
In the same way, since a late spring storm just brought new snow to the Cascade, and I love to ski, even though I have work to do, and should probably stay home and do it, it is not overwhelmingly improbable that I will drive up to Snoqualmie Pass today and do a bit of skiing. One can see why this might happen. If you think you see me there in a few hours, it will be very possible that you do.
Perhaps one could put the possibility that God would do such a thing, a priori, at one in 10. Given hints in Isaiah that after dying for the sins of the people, the Suffering Servant would "see the light of life," (and given the existence of God already accounted for in [1]), we might fairly put that number higher, say 1 in 4.
(3) To evaluate how likely a given person might prove to be the one through whom God reveals his power, let's begin with Martin Luther King. Suppose God wanted to dramatically not just want to show that Entropy would not have the last word, and that there was hope for the human race, by raising a prominent person from the dead. Suppose he also (again, following his character as developed in the OT prophetic works) also wanted to reprimand oppressors by his choice of whom to resurrect. King might be a good person to pick. His resurrection would not only give people hope for life after death, but also demonstrate that God was on the side of non-violence and human rights.
On the other hand, King's resurrection might also send mixed messages about how to treat women, for example, or force God to "pick sides" in American politics. And there are other heroic figures who might do just as well -- Gandhi, say, or Socrates. So given that God exists, and He wanted to prove his power and character and the hope of eternal life by raising one man from the dead, one might suppose the chance that he would pick Martin Luther King might be, say, one, in a one thousand -- much higher than someone picked at random, say Otzi the Iceman, one might reasonably suppose.
In this scenario, would anyone be more likely to be raised than Jesus?
Consider the following facts, none of which depend on the historical accounts of Jesus' final days in the NT:
(a) As mentioned above, 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? Christians, including so perceptive a man as Blaise Pascal, have traditionally 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 do 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.
(b) 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 (going back to [2]) give humanity a sign of hope and redemption in one such fell, miraculous deed?
(c) 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 moral teacher to make His point?
(d) 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 his example? (Leading to such reforms as have in fact occurred?)
(e) 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?
One could go into a great detail on each of these points, and I have done some of that elsewhere. But let me now begin to get to the point.
I haven't introduced any specificially Christian theology into this argument. Even so, these factors seem to show that, if there is a God, and if He intends our redemption through some such act, then the resurrection of Jesus is most to be looked for. 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 would seem to be the best possible tool through whom to express that. (Whether or not he was, himself, divine.)
In fact, one might say that not only is Jesus the most likely candidate, he is the only really likely candidate. Buddha and Lao Zi are almost lost in the historical mists. Mohammed was a bloody conqueror. Confucius was a cautious gentleman, whose teachings were useful, but which could not have dramatically changed the world for the better, as the Gospel has. Gandhi and King were great men, but their movements were inextricably political, and their personal lives not always as inspiring as their ideals.
So it does not seem wildly unreasonable to suppose, prior to looking at any historical facts at all, that there is at least a one in ten chance that God (assuming Him to exist, and to be of such a mind) would have chosen to raise Jesus, of all people from the dead.
One might even say rhetorically (in reading the Gospels, or in frustration at the cruelty and injustice of life) that it would be a miracle if God did NOT raise Jesus from the dead.
Given all that, the prior probability of the Resurrection of Jesus might be as great as, say, 1 in 80 (2 X 4 X 10), and is certainly far greater than one in 100 billion.
If there are independent reasons for believing (1) and (2) that make those odds better than even, as I think there are, then the prior probability of the resurrection, before we even begin to examine the actual historical evidence, might rise to 1 in 10, or so.
If, then, the purely historical evidence for the Resurrection is strong -- and I think Christian historians have shown that it is tremendously strong (see for instance this wonderful piece by Tim & Lydia McGrew)-- then the combined evidence that in fact Jesus DID rise from the dead, as reported, may become quite strong, even prohibitively strong. In that case, one can "flip" the resurrection equation around, and solve it for "Does God exist?" It then becomes reasonable to argue from the Resurrection to the existence of God.
Of course, this conclusion depends on the plausibility of each step of this argument.
53 comments:
FIRST, the probability that God exists. This depends on what is meant by "God". For example. The probability that the God I believe in exists is 100%, since I regard God as Total Existence, so, since something exists, it follows that God also exists. It is an absolute certainty.
But you are talking here about the traditional theistic God, who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. There a good reasons to put the probability of such a God existing at a bit less than 50%. First, omnipotence may be a logical impossibility, which would mean the probability of an an omnipotent being existing is zero. Second, if an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God existed there would not be so much unnecessary suffering and pain in the world, therefore this type of God is very unlikely to exist. So being generous, I would put the probability of such a God existing at about one in a 100 million, or even less. Regarding the probability that a specifically Christian God exists (I.e. a triune God consisting of a Father, a Son and a Holy Ghost) - there is no decent evidence at all that such a God exists. I would put the probability of that at about one in a thousand trillion or possibly even less. But for the purposes of this argument we will just stick to our more generic omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, and estimate, very generously, a one in a hundred million chance that such a God exists.
SECOND, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God existed it would likely want everyone to know about the afterlife, and, being omnipotent and all, it would be able to find a way of letting everyone know about it, in the same way that everyone knows about the existence of the natural world, for example. Anyway, for the purposes of this argument, I'll go some way along with David and halve his probability I.e. I'll put the probability that God would raise one person from the dead at a very generous one in twenty.
THIRD, what is the probability that he would choose Jesus specifically to rise from the dead out of all the billions of people available? Well, God could choose anyone at all for the job, so you could reasonably put the probability at one in tens of billions. But since jesus was a nice guy in some ways, and therefore arguably more suited to the job, I'm going to put the probability of this at a very generous one in fifty. God, being omnibenevolent, would not want hell to exist or anyone to believe in hell. So I'm reducing the probability that he would choose Jesus specifically, because jesus's teaching on hell would be contrary to that of an omnibenevolent God. So one in fifty it is ... Again, being very generous.
If you multiply these three figures together you get a prior probability of Jesus rising from the dead of 1 in a hundred billion.
Brian: Oh, come on, you can do better than the empty blather in your first post. Of course we all know that the "Problem of Pain" is the main weapon in the atheist arsenal -- do you think I wasn't assuming that?
In essence, you're saying there is less than a one in 100 million chance that someone like Alvin Plantinga, who has undermined the value of the Problem of Pain for disproving God in the eyes of many philosophers, sees as clearly as you do. Or, say, Pascal? Isn't that a wee bit arrogant? Isn't there, say, at least a one in ten chance that one of these men sees more clearly than you? Or that Christians who have experienced miracles are not just hallucinating?
You can maintain your inflated numbers, or self-confidence, or bombast, as the case may be: but it seems like paddling out to a little island in the middle of the lake, and then sinking the boat. What can anyone who's not on the island say in response to such silliness? Watch out for mosquitoes.
I think the three variables that you mention are impossible to quantify. And I think theologically you agree that they are impossible to quantify. Also, what you end up theorizing about is the probability that a being that who may or may not exist may or may not act in a particular way.
Actual probability can be measured and depends on data and analysis. In this case, how many people die? How many people come back from the dead?
Now given this data, you could obtain the probability that a person could come back from the dead. You could then start to isolate based on types of injury, amount of time "dead", etcetera. All these variables are measurable and can be analyzed.
Now you can object that this does not account for the uniqueness of the case surrounding Jesus, and you would be right. Applying probability to specific cases is always extrapolative. I can accurately tell you that a particular disease has a 90% 1 year mortality rate. I cannot accurately tell you that you are 90% likely to die in 1 year.
Probability can only be assessed if you have data points to measure. We can obtain data about wounds, deaths, and people who seemingly survive being labeled as dead. We cannot obtain data about the likelihood of god, the likelihood of his acting in specific ways, or who he might act on.
My overall point is that trying to apply probability to this question in the manner that you are doing is pseudoscientific. Probabilities are not guesses. Probabilities depend on actual numbers. When I tell someone that a disease has a 90% 1 year mortality, we counted the people with the disease, and we counted the people still alive after 1 year.
Multiplying opinion by opinion by opinion is still opinion.
It ends up being a Rube-Goldberg machine for saying "I believe the resurrection is likely."
My overall point is not disagreeing with you about the likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus. My point is that any actual analysis of probability would have to be based on things we can actually measure, not unknowable, unquantifiable opinions about god and how god would or would not act.
Brian: "SECOND, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God existed it would likely want everyone to know about the afterlife and, being omnipotent and all, it would be able to find a way of letting everyone know about it, in the same way that everyone knows about the existence of the natural world, for example."
If God existed, Heaven would be visible, audible, smellable, tastable, and tactual?
Come to think of it, maybe Heaven IS all those things. I swear I've heard the testimonials myself on pop music stations.
"God, being omnibenevolent, would not want hell to exist or anyone to believe in hell."
I don't see the logic of this step. It could be, for instance, that God knows twenty people would have become mass murdering tyrants, but for the fear of hell. It could be that Jesus never said anything about hell, at least in the sense that you understand it.
"If you multiply these three figures together you get a prior probability of Jesus rising from the dead of 1 in a hundred billion".
All the "force" of your argument, considered as an argument not as a joke, which of course it is, comes from arbitrarily assigning a huge improbability to the existence of God. Again, on the face of it, it would seem less than astronomically improbable that people like Plato, Confucius, Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, Jesus, Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, Sun Yat-sen, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Mother Theresa got this right, and you and Richard Dawkins got it wrong. Call me crazy, but I think more even odds would be more reasonable, on skeptical premises.
Doc Johnny: "Probability can only be assessed if you have data points to measure. We can obtain data about wounds, deaths, and people who seemingly survive being labeled as dead. We cannot obtain data about the likelihood of god, the likelihood of his acting in specific ways, or who he might act on."
"My overall point is that trying to apply probability to this question in the manner that you are doing is pseudoscientific. Probabilities are not guesses. Probabilities depend on actual numbers."
Probabilities can, in fact, depend on a range of numbers, or on numbers that are somewhat speculative. "Given A, then there's a 50% chance of B" is a common procedure, and quite legitimate, I think. It is also legitimate to try to specify the probability of A, or to attempt to characterize that probability in some way. Thus we use non-quantitative evaluations like "probably," "it seems pretty likely," and so forth, which I do above for my first two variables. No one is claiming that the probability of all-embracing theories of life can be easily quantified, but there's nothing wrong with such thought experiments.
"Multiplying opinion by opinion by opinion is still opinion."
Yes, but some opinions are better than others. I've explained the heuristic basis for my opinions.
"It ends up being a Rube-Goldberg machine for saying 'I believe the resurrection is likely.'"
On the contrary. Rube Goldberg's machines have, maybe, 40 moving parts, each of which has to work to get the coffee to pour into the cup, or whatever.
Here the situation is quite different. We have millions of reports of miracles. If ANY ONE of them is true, then strict materialism cannot be.
So materialists are running the ultimate Rube Goldberg machine.
The resurrection of Jesus is believed on the account of several independent reports. Only one has to be accurate, for the thing to have actually happened.
Assessing prior probability is evaluating atheists' metaphysical arguments AGAINST those reports. So it is atheism, not theism, that requires all the pieces to work just right here, for the theory to be saved.
"My overall point is not disagreeing with you about the likelihood of the resurrection of Jesus. My point is that any actual analysis of probability would have to be based on things we can actually measure, not unknowable, unquantifiable opinions about god and how god would or would not act."
Well, I appreciate the challenge. I think your comments help shed new light on the issue.
But I don't think there's anything wildly improper about how I try to heuristically quantify, or at least bracket, these two questions. My arguments are more a defeater for skeptical responses to the story that Jesus rose from the dead, than definite attempts to pin God down. Reports that He planned to raise Jesus from the dead, given above, do not seem so improbable that they need to be dismissed, for the reasons given.
Also, I wasn't trying to be "scientific," so my blog can't have been "pseudo-scientific." Science does not corner the market in reason.
"Here the situation is quite different. We have millions of reports of miracles. If ANY ONE of them is true, then strict materialism cannot be."
Fair enough, but proof of the supernatural does not prove God. There are an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations.
The resurrection of Jesus is believed on the account of several independent reports. Only one has to be accurate, for the thing to have actually happened.
And there are several independent reports of Elvis sightings since his death. These are far more recent. If reports were all that was necessary to substantiate truth, then Elvis is alive.
But I don't think there's anything wildly improper about how I try to heuristically quantify, or at least bracket, these two questions. My arguments are more a defeater for skeptical responses to the story that Jesus rose from the dead, than definite attempts to pin God down. Reports that He planned to raise Jesus from the dead, given above, do not seem so improbable that they need to be dismissed, for the reasons given.
I don't think it is improper, just not useful as proof of anything. Keep in mind I think the same thing when atheists use the same shenanigans to "disprove" God.
Also, I wasn't trying to be "scientific," so my blog can't have been "pseudo-scientific." Science does not corner the market in reason.
Fair enough. Let me state my objections. Probability is a science. I feel that the use of probabilities implies predictive value. To have predictive value, actual data points need to be obtained.
While examining your opinions using the language of probability seems useful, it actually just lends a false sense of objectivity and certainty to the process since the numbers assigned are to a great degree arbitrary.
"Fair enough, but proof of the supernatural does not prove God. There are an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations."
True. But Occam is working for is, here. One God is easier to buy than the whole crowd on Olympus, as the Greek philosophers eventually discovered.
"And there are several independent reports of Elvis sightings since his death. These are far more recent. If reports were all that was necessary to substantiate truth, then Elvis is alive."
I've actually never run across a believable report of someone who knew Elvis after his death. But if there are such reports, why don't you believe them? (That's a real, not rhetorical, question.)
"Fair enough. Let me state my objections. Probability is a science. I feel that the use of probabilities implies predictive value. To have predictive value, actual data points need to be obtained.
"While examining your opinions using the language of probability seems useful, it actually just lends a false sense of objectivity and certainty to the process since the numbers assigned are to a great degree arbitrary."
The main purpose of this blog is to defeat Brian's claim that the Prior Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus is very low, because it is just artitrary who is raised from the dead. (That's the error you're also making with Elvis, BTW.) I think the blog succeeds in doing that. I think my method for obtaining a heuristical probability for God's existence is reasonable, though of course it's not meant to be completely satisfying. (Brian falls back on silly odds against, and of course he can do that, if he wants.) That leaves "what God would do" as the main unknown variable -- and if we have any reason to think he might do this, all in all, I think this argument does render the PP of the Rez pretty high. No one is claiming these numbers have to be treated as anything but a convenience for a useful experiment in thought -- this is not a mathematics journal,it's a blog.
But your criticisms are helpful and, in their way, appropriate.
Probability Sampling
Define Probability sampling, what is probability sampling? , types of Probability sampling,
http://www.infoaw.com/article.php?articleId=946
Very good article, David. I think it would be helpful to include links to the issues you say you devote time to elsewhere - would be a good read!
Thanks! Of course, I especially hope people will read my books, linked to off to the right. But also, see my recent post on "my fourteen best posts of the year," of which this was one.
I have come to the conclusion that the reason why Christians see the evidence for the Resurrection as “strong” and skeptics such as myself see it as “very weak” is due to our very different views regarding the probability of this event. Christians view the Christian supernatural resurrection explanation as the most probable explanation for the early Christian resurrection belief because they presume the existence of their ancient Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. Since skeptics do not believe that Yahweh exists, they view the Christian supernatural explanation as very improbable; we believe that there are many, much more probable, naturalistic explanations for each piece of evidence that does exist surrounding the death of Jesus.
Many of us skeptics acknowledge the possible existence of evidence for a generic Creator. But we do not believe that this evidence automatically translates to evidence for Yahweh. To us, if there is a Creator, he/she/they/it have determined that the universe is to operate by inviolable laws that are NEVER violated. Yahweh claims to have repeatedly violated these laws. Since science has found no evidence of these violations, we believe that this is but one piece of evidence of Yahweh’s non-existence. And there is more evidence of his non-existence: The consensus of geologists is that Noah’s Flood is a myth. The consensus of archeologists is that the Exodus is a myth. The consensus of biologists is that the Creation story is a myth. The consensus of cosmologists is that the age of the earth as determined by the genealogies in the OT is a myth. In addition, Yahweh believes that a “firmament”, a dome or shell, exists above the earth. Scientists say no such entity exists. There is just too much evidence to believe that Yahweh exists. It is much more probable that he is the figment of the imagination of an ancient, scientifically ignorant people. And without presuming the existence of Yahweh, there are just too many much more probable explanations for the early Christian resurrection belief than a never heard of before or since reanimation of a three day brain dead corpse.
Gary: It is interesting that you distance yourself from God by fixing an ancient Hebrew name to Him, which makes Him seem less familiar. This may be a symptom of something.
God is not an "ancient Jewish deity:" He is the Creator, as known in thousands of cultures around the world even BEFORE the Good News arrived. The Hebrew name is not that important.
I don't know what you mean by claiming that "Science has never found a violation of its laws." History, not science, is the field primarily responsible for studying past events. (Though of course historians make use of physics, math, archeology, etc.) And many historians have argued that miracles have, in fact, occurred. You seem to be arguing in a circle. (As Hume did.) Miracles never happen, because they can't happen, because they never happen.
Anyway, I wouldn't define miracles as "a violation of the laws of science." I would define them as "a probative event in this world which gives evidence of God's special workings." A miracle, therefore, reflects the character of a good God, and the rationality of creation, and calls us to be more human, not to bark like dogs or go mad.
What a coincidence, David. Dare I say it: A miracle! I just posted a new post on this very topic today on my blog. Here is what I said:
Listen to any debate involving a prominent conservative Christian apologist on the topic of "Does God Exist: and they will usually appeal to the following two lines of argument for the existence of God:
–Everything we know comes from something. Something cannot come from nothing.
–The fine tuning of the universe (the laws of physics, the set orbits of planets, etc.) points to an intelligent designer, a Creator.
My response: It is certainly possible that our universe was created by an intelligent being, but that in no way proves that your god, Yahweh/Jesus the carpenter Christ, is that intelligent creator. The Judeo-Christian god claims to have produced many amazing, laws-of-physics defying “miracles”, yet no scientist since the dawn of the scientific age has ever been able to verify one single laws-of-physics defying event. Not one. Ever.
So, although it is certainly possible that your god, by sheer coincidence, stopped violating the laws of physics just prior to the point in time when humans began using the Scientific Method, I think a more rational conclusion would be that your god does not exist, or at a minimum, that he has lost all his magical powers, and therefore cannot help or harm us.
Dear Christian apologist: Don’t bother me with evidence for an Intelligent Designer. If he/she/they or it exist(s), all evidence suggests that they don’t give a *$!%* about what happens to you or me. Give me good evidence for the existence of your god…or get off the debate stage! You are wasting our time.
David said, "God is not an "ancient Jewish deity:" He is the Creator, as known in thousands of cultures around the world even BEFORE the Good News arrived. The Hebrew name is not that important."
As the late, great Christopher Hitchens used to say, "Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality." It is perfectly understandable that all or almost all primitive peoples invented superstitious rituals and invisible superheroes in an attempt to make sense of their scary, dangerous world. Humans see cause and effect in practically everything! If our ancient forefathers heard a rustling in the tall grass, they automatically imagined a sabertooth tiger or some other "monster" lurking in the grass, ready to pounce on them. This superstitious instinct kept them alive! But we no longer need superstitions to keep us alive, David. Trust science, my friend, not ancient, scientifically ignorant superstitions and imaginary superheroes.
Gary: Sorry for slow response last time. Here's a quicker one.
I don't see the coincidence since I didn't make either of those two arguments. You're wrong: many apologists use those arguments, others do not. Which doesn't mean they're either good or bad.
This is an historical claim, albeit a vague one:
"No scientist since the dawn of the scientific age has ever been able to verify one single laws-of-physics defying event. Not one. Ever."
(1) How do you know that it's true?
(2) What makes you think a "laws of physics defying event" is the definition of "miracle?"
(3) What makes you think that if such an event took place, it would be provable even in theory? (Modern science has been forced to recognize limits to knowledge and take them into account.)
(4) Do you possess omnipotent knowledge of what every SINGLE scientist has or has not verified?
(5) Why ask scientists to do the work of historians? Don't you recognize the difference between those two fields? Scientific experiments are replicable. Historical events are not.
As for Hitchens being "great," he was a great windbag, and a talented journalist (if there is any difference). He was not an historian. I rebutted some of his claims 14 years ago, in The Truth Behind the New Atheism, though frankly his arguments weren't meaty enough to occupy much of the book.
Trust history, Gary, not gasbag journalists, or scientists doing history in off-hours.
I'm an historian of religion. I debunk that particular notion of the rise of religion in that particular book. No one has refuted my arguments yet -- feel free to take that task on, if you like.
"No scientist since the dawn of the scientific age has ever been able to verify one single laws-of-physics defying event. Not one. Ever."
How do you know that it's true?
Gary: If a scientist was able to provide evidence of (verify) a violation of the laws of physics he would quite likely be one of the most famous scientists in history. No one has stepped forward yet with such evidence.
"What makes you think a "laws of physics defying event" is the definition of "miracle?" "
Yes, it is important that we agree on our definitions. I realize that in your worldview, a "miracle" can involve events which do not defy the laws of physics, for instance, recovery from an illness. So maybe a definition of "miracle" which we can both agree upon would be this: the intervention of a supernatural force or being into the natural order/processes of the universe.
But when someone recovers from an illness after prayers to Jesus or any other god, how do we know if this healing occurred by natural processes alone or by the intervention of a supernatural force? We don't. But when someone alleges that a human being levitated into the clouds without any mechanical assistance, we can safely assume that we are dealing with a violation of the laws of physics. And for such events, no scientist has yet stepped forward with evidence that verifies than any such event has ever occurred.
''The resurrection of Jesus is believed on the account of several independent reports.''
Which independent reports would these be, please and how did you come to the conclusion they were genuine and reliable?
Thanks
Mark, John, Special L, Special M, Paul and the people Paul talked to in Jerusalem.
I concluded that they were genuine by analyzing the gospels and discovering 30 distinct lines of evidence within and between them that strongly support their historical accuracy. Many of these have been discussed already by eminent scholars, others I found for myself. (Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels.)
When you write ''Mark John etc'' I presume you are referring to the Gospels?
As the gospels are anonymous texts, and many of Paul's letters are pseudoepigraphic ( not genuine),and gMatthew, for example, includes approximately 600 verses taken from gMark, some verbatim, how do you judge their veracity?
Would you list half dozen of these lines of evidence, please, and reveal the names of (some of)the eminent scholars, who I presume are also notable historians and not prejudiced by any religious convictions?
Thanks
That's why I referred not to Matthew, but Special M, not to Luke, but Special L.
What do you mean by "prejudiced by religious convictions?" Are you assuming that people whose opinions differ from yours cannot be fair-minded or insightful scholars? Because if that's your assumption, that's not very open-minded in itself.
If you're interested in the subject, please read the book. It's gotten great reviews from eminent scholars, whether or not you agree with their opinions about ultimate reality. I cannot do justice to my arguments in this space, especially since I'm writing two other books right now.
The majority of experts do not believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses.
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
They are not historically reliable documents. Most experts believe that the Gospels were written in a literary genre that allowed for considerable embellishment. In addition, the authors of these books state that their purpose in writing was for evangelization purposes (propaganda). If any other religion attempted to pass off anonymous, non-eyewitness documents purporting to be evidence for laws-of-physics defying events, you would chuckle and hand wave them away.
"What makes you think that if such an event took place, it would be provable even in theory?"
If a laws-of-physics claim cannot be proven, then I suggest we ignore it as too improbable to take seriously. If a religious cult today claimed that its leader levitated into the clouds right before their very eyes, what evidence would you require to believe this laws-of-physics claim? If twelve of them signed affidavits that it really occurred, would that be sufficient evidence for you? If so, I have land in the Florida everglades to sell you.
''Are you assuming that people whose opinions differ from yours cannot be fair-minded or insightful scholars?''
No. I mean that someone who is deeply religious - such as you for example - will enter any discussion with firmly held presuppositions that are underpinned by( in this case) a Christian worldview, usually based on a religious upbringing from childhood or later conversion (often because of some unfortunate traumatic event - Consider Francis Collins conversion, for example)
Therefore, a non-religious scholar and certainly a non-religious historian is likely to be more more objective.
I am unfamiliar with (the terms) ''Special M etc.'' Could you clarify, please
Also, could you please list a couple of the lines of evidence you mention, and just the name of one eminent scholar will do, and I can research from this.
Thanks
Okay ... I realised what you meant by the term ''Special.''
I should have known. It's been a long day, sorry!
I am still interested in ( a few) lines of evidence you drew your conclusions from regarding veracity.
Thanks
No problem.
One of the qualities is what NT Wright calls Double Similarity, Double Disimilarity. He explains and defends this approach to supporting the general credibility of the gospels in Jesus and the Victory of God.
One of the literary qualities is that Jesus frequently offers suprising, non-platitudinous aphorisms. I cite a literary genius (Chesterton) and a psychologist (M. Scott Peck) on the truth and historical significance of this, first on pages 131-2, but could also cite Dickens, Tolstoy, AN Wilson, and do cite some members of the Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk, etc) on this in another book.
I have always understood that Tom Wright considers the gospels to be anonymous - as do most noted critical scholars, I believe?
Again, I am interested in at least a couple of specific lines of evidence that you refer to (from the Gospels - KJV?) with regard Special M etc that convinced you of veracity.
For example: Surely you are not in the Norm Geisler camp and do not put any stock in the outlandish claim that at the time of the crucifixion the graves opened and the Saints went walkabout in Jerusalem?
Also, can you cite any recognised non-religious historian/s that agree with your position?
Tom Holland comes to mind.
Maybe one who reviewed your book, perhaps?
Did you send any copies to any non-religious historians for review by chance?
''...general credibility of the gospels in Jesus and the Victory of God.''
As the gospels are anonymous and you are primarily (only?) utilising ''Special Matthew'' etc. with regard your claim of veracity (which then side-lines the resurrection appearances, as critical scholarship considers the long ending of gMark a (interpolation) forgery, on what do you base your assertion of the gospels credibility and especially your term ''Victory of God'', which comes across as somewhat polemic, an odd turn of phrase as we are trying to establish the grounds on which you assert veracity/historicity.
I did check our your book on Amazon by the way, and read several reviews.
I didn't notice the names of any eminent scholars among those who had reviewed it. Maybe I missed them?
Thanks.
Gary: The only kind of scholars who give bad reviews to my books are radical atheists whose arguments I have debunked, and who are mad. The names that come to mind are Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier. But I'm not very well-known, so reviews by qualified atheists are rare, so far.
Mark actually refers to the resurrection more than once BEFORE the added ending. Probably the original ending told the resurrection story in detail: those previous "set up" comments make no sense, otherwise. Anyway, all the gospels were written within the plausible life-spans of some of Jesus' earliest followers.
Geisler has not influenced me.
Describing the gospels as "anonymous" is, I think, inaccurate. Wright gave a warm recommendation to Richard Bauchham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, as did James Dunn, Graham Stanton, and Martin Hengel, at least. With those kinds of recommendations, his arguments need to be part of the conversation. I think Luke did write Luke, Mark likely wrote Mark, and a follower of Jesus named John probably did help produce the accounts given in that gospel, with help from a disciple or two. I have no idea who wrote Matthew. But my own arguments do NOT depend on answering those questions.
No, I did not send my book to anti-Christian scholars. There is one review by a scholar in a somewhat related field on Amazon. Here are reviews by scholars who work in this area:
Craig Blomberg
“David Marshall presents a rare combination of forms of expertise . . . Support for the credibility of Christianity can be found here that is available nowhere else. A must read for anyone interested in the subject.”
Craig Keener
"Fingerprints is engagingly written, revealing helpful acquaintance with the literature of various cultures, and making many points not offered by others. It logically dismantles much idiosyncratic, popular nonsense that claims to reflect scholarly opinion, as well as some tendentiously argued scholarship. Those who cast their nets for "parallels" too widely will soon see that their nets have acquired far more "parallels" than they intended!"
Tim McGrew
"David Marshall . . . engages directly with the works of critics like Reza Aslan, Richard Carrier, and Bart Ehrman, and he does so with a rich combination of new arguments -- the section on the Bal Shem Tov alone is worth the price of the book -- and some of the best material from the rich storehouse of the history of apologetics. The result is a book full of fresh insights, penetrating analysis, and dry wit."
Give it a shot! Even if I don't persuade you, if you read it with an open mind, you will certainly gain new perspectives on the gospels and on history.
You speak about "anti-Christian" scholars who reject the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels, implying that their position is based on a bias against Christianity, but what about the fact that a very large percentage of scholars who do believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, the reality of miracles, the reality of the supernatural, also do not believe in the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels: Roman Catholic scholars. How do you explain this?
Your reply is addressed to Gary but the email link says it is ''to me''. I will respond and if the reply was meant for Gary please say so and /or delete it, David , no problem.
''The only kind of scholars who give bad reviews to my books are radical atheists whose arguments I have debunked, and who are mad.''
Again, the reviews on Amazon did not, in the main ,indicate whether the reviewer was a believer or not. Although if I recall, without going back to Amazon, there were a couple who identified themselves as Christian. These were either 3 or 4 star reviews. I did not notice Avalos' or Carrier's name among the others. I don't often hold with Carrier but Avalos is well-respected and his take on the Exodus is first rate.
''Mark actually refers to the resurrection more than once BEFORE the added ending. ''
Correct. But the phrase I used was post resurrection appearances. I think the distinction is important.
''Probably the original ending told the resurrection story in detail: those previous "set up" comments make no sense, otherwise. Anyway, all the gospels were written within the plausible life-spans of some of Jesus' earliest followers.''
''Probably''... It is unfortunate there is no evidence to suggest this, and no critical scholar that I have read/ listened to has said this either. However, it makes sense if the ending was added later.
'' Anyway, all the gospels were written within the plausible life-spans of some of Jesus' earliest followers.''
In this context, ''Anyway'' is somewhat of a throwaway word and so is ''plausible''. Each denotes a lack of supporting evidence, which is in fact the case. One might just as well write: ''Anyway, the Exodus must have happened because it is the most plausible explanation.'' And we know that this is not so as the evidence tells us it isn't.
''Geisler has not influenced me.''
Thank goodness! So you agree that the Raising of the Saints episode in Matthew is simply fiction, or as Licona refers to it , Apocalyptic Imagery. This is obviously not . one of the lines of evidence you are referring to! That is a relief.:)
''Describing the gospels as "anonymous" is, I think, inaccurate''
If you believe this is ''inaccurate'' then such a position flies in the face of all critical scholarship I am aware of. The onus then, surely, lies with those who dispute the consensus/lack of evidence to identify who wrote them. Richard Bauckham acknowledges his view is contrary to critical scholarship.
''But my own arguments do NOT depend on answering those questions.''
Fair enough. I have no issue with this but I am still waiting for a few specific lines (from Special M and Special Luke if you wish to include which you consider demonstrate the veracity of your claim/s.)
''No, I did not send my book to anti-Christian scholars.''
To be fair, David, this wasn't the way I phrased the question. I merely asked if you sent the book to non-religious scholars and particularly non-religious historians, not ''anti-Christian scholars.''
I mentioned Tom Holland as an example; he is hardly anti-Christian, and in fact, defends Christian influence on Western culture and values.
Do I take it that no non-religious historians reviewed the book for you?
The names and reviews you have offered here - I think I read them at Amazon - are Christians, am I correct?
So, if you could provide those lines of evidence I asked for I'd appreciate it.
Regards
Ark
NT Wright says that he doesn't know who wrote the Gospels and that neither does anyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszDfiERnhk&feature=emb_logo
If we don't know who wrote these books, why should we trust their claims of laws-of-physics defying, fantastical, events? I seriously doubt you would consider such a claim from another religion as worthy of our serious consideration. Is it possible that the reason you believe these fantastical claims is not because their is good, objective evidence but simply because your "heart" tells you it is true?
"there" not "their". Typo.
Gary: "Know" is a strong word, and I use it carefully, myself. But when it comes to history, you have to be careful about dates. It appears that that clip is from 2001. Bauckham's book was written several years later.
And Gary, I wrote a whole book rebutting that "I doubt you would trust such stories from another religion" line. It's called "How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test for Faith: the Inside Story." How Christianity relates to other religions is my field.
Ark: Sorry, I thought you were the same person, since this is an old post and your name is a little unusual.
DM: ''Probably the original ending told the resurrection story in detail: those previous "set up" comments make no sense, otherwise. Anyway, all the gospels were written within the plausible life-spans of some of Jesus' earliest followers.''
Ark: ''Probably''... It is unfortunate there is no evidence to suggest this, and no critical scholar that I have read/ listened to has said this either. However, it makes sense if the ending was added later."
Sometimes "critical scholar" is used in these contexts, to dismiss scholars who don't agree with one's own views. So I'm a little cautious about that term.
I do not claim expertise in the Gospel of Mark. But if you remove the "new ending" to Mark, you get a text that seems to end with a strange abruptness and sense of incompleteness. We know that the later verses were added. It seems a simple hypothesis that they replaced an original and more complete ending. That earlier verses clearly promise a resurrection, makes this seem even more likely, though of course not certain.
"In this context, ''Anyway'' is somewhat of a throwaway word and so is ''plausible''. Each denotes a lack of supporting evidence, which is in fact the case."
On the contrary, "anyway" here is a synonym for "in addition." It means "there are two points against that claim, and here is the second."
"Plausible" obviously does not mean "a lack of supporting evidence." In fact, as mentioned, I wrote a book offering 300 pages of evidence in support of the gospels being close historical accounts!
You need to read more charitably.
I do, in fact, carefully consider ages and dates in that book: "plausible" really means, "I have excellent reasons to think this, but am not going to give them all right now."
"So you agree that the Raising of the Saints episode in Matthew is simply fiction, or as Licona refers to it , Apocalyptic Imagery."
The story seems highly unlikely to me, and quite unlike most miracles in the NT. But obviously there is no evidence one way or the other, aside from that one brief account.
"If you believe this is ''inaccurate'' then such a position flies in the face of all critical scholarship I am aware of. The onus then, surely, lies with those who dispute the consensus/lack of evidence to identify who wrote them. Richard Bauckham acknowledges his view is contrary to critical scholarship."
Here's this term "critical scholarship," again. Can you give the actual quote and source from Bauckham? He is, of course, an accomplished scholar, as are several of those who blurbed his book in such warm terms.
''No, I did not send my book to anti-Christian scholars.''
"To be fair, David, this wasn't the way I phrased the question. I merely asked if you sent the book to non-religious scholars and particularly non-religious historians, not ''anti-Christian scholars.''"
Those terms also weighted, in my view. I maintain, for instance, that everyone is "religious," in the neutral sense of religion as an "ultimate concern," from Tillich. So there are no "non-religious scholars." The practical point is, everyone has not only a bias, but an ultimate standpoint which is comparable to those of other scholars. No one is completely neutral.
"I mentioned Tom Holland as an example; he is hardly anti-Christian, and in fact, defends Christian influence on Western culture and values."
If you happen to have Tom's email, I'd be delighted to get his opinion, though he's not an NT scholar. (Though I'd probably prefer to send him the manuscript of my new book, which is closer to his expertise.) I have received endorsements from atheists in the past, but have not made a special effort to get them, so far.
"So, if you could provide those lines of evidence I asked for I'd appreciate it."
??? I briefly described two of the 30 traits by which I judge the gospels to be historically credible, above. I am not going to give you the full argument, here, because (a) I don't have time; (b) all you have to do is read the book, which is worth reading; (c) giving more than a summary but less than the whole thing would be unfair to the complete argument.
If you do read the book, I'm sure your perspective would prove interesting. I am thinking of making a Kindle version.
"Gary: "Know" is a strong word, and I use it carefully, myself. But when it comes to history, you have to be careful about dates. It appears that that clip is from 2001. Bauckham's book was written several years later."
I read Bauckham's book cover to cover (and reviewed it on my blog). No where in the Forward to the book does NT Wright recant his stated position that no one knows who wrote the Gospels. In fact, although he gives Bauckham a lot of praise for his work, he says nothing about whether he agrees with it or not. I find it to be a typical "posh" English response. Ask an upper class Englishman what he thinks of your very ugly dog and he will politely respond, "Lovely! Quite lovely, indeed!".
May we get back to the original topic? What evidence do you have that Jesus of Nazareth was the creator of the universe?
Re: Critical scholar.
That you take issue with the term ''critical scholar'' does not mitigate the fact there is no evidence for an original longer ending to gMark.
Furthermore, the context in which you in turn tend to cautiously dismiss those who are generally recognised as critical scholars would then likely dismiss the majority of biblical scholars who do not hold more inerrant views , and this would include many/most notable Catholic scholars, including theologians and ordained priests.
The oldest manuscripts do not contain the long ending and most modern bibles add a footnote to explain. Therefore, it is probably unwise to infer what the author of gMark might have written or speculate on whether the ending is odd or unfinished or whichever term you wish to use when it is simply not there. The long ending is recognised as a forgery(interpolation) and this is the evidence we have.
After all, Ken Ham would have us believe we all ran around with dinosaurs once upon a time and the entire earth was flooded! The evidence tells a different story.
RE: Anyway, Plausible, and reading more charitably.
If you actually meant ''In addition (to)'' and plausible meant ''there is evidence'' then perhaps you should have a) qualified what you meant with evidence and b) offered a few examples.
As I initially stated, the way it was written came across as throwaway.
The onus is always on the author to convey correct and accurate meaning when they wish to express themselves, especially when dealing with claims of evidence in a supposed non- fiction environment.
Re: The Raising of the Saints.
The story seems highly unlikely to me, ...
As you are an apologist I can understand your reluctance to state outright this passage is simply a work of fiction, an embellishment, if you will, to drive home a point. However, in the spirit if openness and honesty would you at least concede that it is Apocalyptic Imagery as Licona believes?
Re: Your objection to my criticism of your term ''anti-Christian'' scholars.
Yes, everyone does have their biases. This, however, should not detract from claims regarding evidence, which should always be able to withstand scrutiny.
Example: I mentioned the Exodus and the evidence that has surfaced over the past 100 years which shows the tale as written in the Bible is untenable and I know of not a single archaeologist who has ever produced a scrap of verified evidence to counter the current archaeological and historical view, and this would include someone as recognised and eminent as Kitchen.
I am not religious in the least, although I come from a culturally Christian background. I consider myself to be open-minded enough to change my views on anything if the evidence demonstrates I am wrong, or at least hold beliefs or views that are patently untenable.
Re: Tom Holland. I'm fairly sure a quick Google search will reveal his contact details.
Type in: tom holland historian: contact info.
And perhaps he may also be able to provide you with names of other historians he knows?
Re: Lines of evidence.
Yes, I understand you mentioned traits, but you were specific in pointing out why you used Special Matthew etc as the basis for considering the gospels historically credible. This implies you are using the unique parts of these gospels that do not appear in gMark.
It is obvious you would not be referring to such passages as the Raising of the Saints or the Virgin Birth tale as there is no evidence to support these claims.
This is why I asked for specific lines / verses(?) from these Special texts that you found demonstrated historical credibility.
Again, please understand, I really am not expecting you to expound on the lines/verses or include everything you examined, just one or two verses - you can simply bullet point them if this is easier for you?
Maybe these will provide the impetus for me to read your book? You never know, right?
Thanks.
Sorry ... forgot this.
Can you give the actual quote and source from Bauckham?
“The argument of this book [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus– *runs counter to almost all recent scholarship.
—Richard Bauckham, evangelical NT scholar, p. 240, first edition, published 2006
*my bold.
The best evidence proving that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Creator God is given here:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2021/02/26/debunking-the-exodus-is-the-best-method-to-expose-jesus-as-a-false-messiah/
Just because a few of his followers believed that he appeared to them, in some fashion, after his death is NOT good evidence that he is the Creator.
Gary: I believe you introduced the question of what NT Wright thinks of the authorship of the gospels: I certainly did not. You can dismiss "tour de force" and "remarkable piece of detective work" as mere British politeness, if you like. But the assumption that a previous opinion about the issue which the "tour de force" tackles remains the same AFTER reading it, is your own, and is historically wreckless. Can you admit that?
I have seen skeptics make similar excuses for dismissing glowing reviews of my own books by eminent scholars who were NOT British. This is not a healthy habit. I am asked to review books, from time to time. I hope you won't assume I am ever lying in such reviews, because I don't.
Ark: I don't automatically dismiss scholars who disagree with me. I read them, when I have the chance, and try to sift the wheat from the tares. I find much of value, for instance, in Marcus Borg, and some in John Crossan, who is also an excellent writer. Allison has much to contribute, as does Horsley. Sanders is often quite good. I think Ehrman is over-rated, but he is strong in some areas. I have only dabbled in Vermes, but he seems formidable. Downing seems a little slanted, more so Maccoby. Frederickson, Pagels, even Funk has his moments. I am not a fan of Sponge or Mack, and find Chilton's Rabbi Jesus quite daft. King can be rather sneaky, but seems to get her facts mostly right.
I suppose those are some of the scholars you think of as "critical." Hopefully we can agree that it is appropriate to read "critical scholars" critically."
"As I initially stated, the way it was written came across as throwaway.
The onus is always on the author to convey correct and accurate meaning when they wish to express themselves, especially when dealing with claims of evidence in a supposed non- fiction environment."
Less so on an old blog post. Readers also have a responsibility to be fair: but you asked, and I answered, so I think we're both being reasonable enough for the occasion.
"Re: The Raising of the Saints.
"The story seems highly unlikely to me, ...
Ark: "As you are an apologist I can understand your reluctance to state outright this passage is simply a work of fiction, an embellishment, if you will, to drive home a point. However, in the spirit if openness and honesty would you at least concede that it is Apocalyptic Imagery as Licona believes?"
That's not a fair reading. "Highly unlikely" expresses proper Socratic humility. You read it as an "apologist's" lack of courage, or perhaps even lack of honesty: not charitable. I am being frank. "Apologist" is not a word that defines me as a thinker. I am a disciple of Socrates and Confucius, as well as Jesus Christ.
If you tell me you live on the moon and commute to work, I would call that even more unlikely. I don't throw the word "impossible" around freely. I respect Licona's book on the resurrection, but feel no need to follow his lead in such matters.
You can read the book or not. I'm not going to try to talk you into it. I don't know if you'll enjoy it or not! But at the moment, you seem to be trying to force me to argue in a form that is comfortable for you. (And frankly, wastes time for me, by framing matters in terms that are uncongenial to my approach.) My work has its strengths, and no doubt its weaknesses, which are best understood, if you want to understand them, in their own terms.
Ark: I don't automatically dismiss scholars who disagree with me.
Now THAT is an example of uncharitable reading. I didn't say you did ''automatically dismiss''. The word I used was cautiously.
I suppose those are some of the scholars you think of as "critical." Hopefully we can agree that it is appropriate to read "critical scholars" critically."
Absolutely . This is why evidence is crucial in all such matters. If claims of evidence cannot be supported/verified then they remain claims. Such as the long ending to gMark, yes?
Re: Correct word usage:
Less so on an old blog post. Readers also have a responsibility to be fair:
Really? What has the age of a blog got to do with word definition and usage? You are an author; if your editor/publisher suggested a passage or words in one of your books which was due for a reprint and update came across as ambiguous would you tell him/her that the reader has a ''responsibility to be fair?'' I think not.
Re: The Dead Saints That's not a fair reading. "Highly unlikely" expresses proper Socratic humility.
Okay. Fair enough. So, in effect you are suggesting there is a possibility , slim no doubt, that the event has historical credibility? What evidence, if any, can you offer to support such an suggestion?
If you tell me you live on the moon and commute to work, I would call that even more unlikely.
Seriously? More unlikely than a bunch of Dead Saints climbing out of their graves and going walkabout in Downtown Jerusalem in c33AD? Wow!
you seem to be trying to force me to argue in a form that is comfortable for you. (And frankly, wastes time for me, by framing matters in terms that are uncongenial to my approach.
Not al all. You asserted that your reason for belief in historical credibility was primarily because of Special M and Special L etc. This was what initially grabbed my attention and has continued to engage my interest throughout this discussion.
I remind you of your own words: ''That's why I referred not to Matthew, but Special M, not to Luke, but Special L. .....
And this is why I am asking you to list a couple of passages or verses from these parts of these gospels , or just one of them if you prefer, (your choice).
It really isn't an unreasonable request, David, and all you have to do is identify the passage/s, not even write it/them out. I have enough bibles on my shelf, I'm sure I can find the passage/s you identify!
Surely you can see your way clear to oblige on such a small detail?
Regards
BTW did you find Holland's contact details?
Ark.
Ark: Don't feel offended if I laugh. You're not a lawyer, by any chance, are you?
I don't mind answering tough questions, but to keep a conversation on topic, one has to prune a little. (I just pruned one of my apple trees.)
"What has the age of a blog got to do with word definition and usage?"
Standards for a blog are, of course, generally lower than for formal publications. I see this as a conversation. Serious challenges and questions are welcome: nit-picking is a bore. That's how I look at it, anyway. I'll triple-ckeck a reference for an article: not for a comment on a blog post.
"So, in effect you are suggesting there is a possibility , slim no doubt, that the event has historical credibility? What evidence, if any, can you offer to support such an suggestion?"
Please don't twist my cautious skepticism into a positive assertion. "In effect you are saying" are dangerous words. Surely my "commute from the moon" example made my meaning clear enough!
"Seriously? More unlikely than a bunch of Dead Saints climbing out of their graves and going walkabout in Downtown Jerusalem in c33AD? Wow!"
You're being extremely silly. If you want me to play that game, and it is game, I can play it, though.
Begin by explaining to me, if you wish to go down that path, how you could possibly commute to work from the moon, apparently while keeping your commute habits secret from our whole planet.
"Not al all. You asserted that your reason for belief in historical credibility was primarily because of Special M and Special L etc."
That is a profound misreading. This appears to be my original comment:
"Mark, John, Special L, Special M, Paul and the people Paul talked to in Jerusalem.
"I concluded that they were genuine by analyzing the gospels and discovering 30 distinct lines of evidence within and between them that strongly support their historical accuracy. Many of these have been discussed already by eminent scholars, others I found for myself. (Jesus is No Myth: The Fingerprints of God on the Gospels.)"
My actual claim should be clear from this. I claim to have analyzed "the gospels" and found 30 "distinct" lines of evidence that "strongly support" their historicity. Some I derive from other scholars, others I claim to have found myself.
I did not focus on M and L as intensely as you seem to be doing. I regard that issue as relatively trivial. You seem to be demanding of a gold mine that it produce coal. Each to their own. SOME coal comes out of this mine, but I concentrate on the more valuable ore.
In my analysis, the multiplicity of sources only consistutes one out of 30 lines of evidence, though it figures in some of the others as well.
I claim to have analyzed "the gospels" and found 30 "distinct" lines of evidence that "strongly support" their historicity. Some I derive from other scholars, others I claim to have found myself.
Fair enough. Having re-read you original comment up thread I concur. Apologies for any misunderstanding and 'word-twisting' on my part,. This was not my intention.
Of the 30 distinct lines of evidence, that convinced you of the gospels historicity can you provide a few examples, including the ones you found yourself? Maybe a verse or two? Again, I don't expect you to expound on what verses/examples you offer, and a shot bullet-point list will suffice.
No, I am mot a lawyer, although for a number of years I did deal quite a lot with legal contracts of sale.
Regards
Ark
Don't you find it odd, David, that the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus was not sufficient evidence for the earliest Christians to believe that Jesus was God (Yahweh)? The Christians in Jerusalem were still praying to, worshipping, and offering animal sacrifices to Yahweh in the Temple more than TWENTY years after Jesus' death (Acts 26). If the alleged "eyewitnesses" did not see the alleged resurrection as sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus was God, why on earth should anyone today?
Ark: I mentioned a couple above:
"One of the qualities is what NT Wright calls Double Similarity, Double Disimilarity. He explains and defends this approach to supporting the general credibility of the gospels in Jesus and the Victory of God.
"One of the literary qualities is that Jesus frequently offers suprising, non-platitudinous aphorisms. I cite a literary genius (Chesterton) and a psychologist (M. Scott Peck) on the truth and historical significance of this, first on pages 131-2, but could also cite Dickens, Tolstoy, AN Wilson, and do cite some members of the Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk, etc) on this in another book."
Gary: Your question is confused. Christians worship God.
@ David
Yes, I have previously read this several times. But you seem to be missing the point of what I write or I'm not making myself understood?
In reference to your 30 lines of evidence I have asked you to provide specific examples that helped convince you of historical reliability.ie gMatthew 1-5 or gLuke 1-5
So, once again, will you please provide a short list/bullet point of these lines/verses.
Thanks.
Yes, I realize, David, that today's Christians worship Jesus as Yahweh, but that doesn't seem to have been the case with the earliest Christians in Jerusalem. You didn't answer my question: Why were the earliest Christians in Jerusalem still offering animal sacrifices in the Temple if they knew that Jesus was Yahweh and that his shed blood on the cross once and for all ended the need for animal sacrifices? Have you read Acts chapter 21?
Post a Comment