Last week, we focused on the idea of eyewitness testimony and two key objections surfaced as a result of this discussion:
1. Any individual testimony is generally insufficient in the eyes of the law and should be seen as insufficient in relation to the gospels as well.
2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.
The first point is certainly valid to the nature of eyewitnesses in general; however, I would say that select eyewitnesses are certainly more estimable than others, and I doubt this statement would be hotly contested. In court rooms today, witnesses remain an integral piece of the puzzle. Are some untrustworthy? Absolutely! It’s up to the advocates on either side to ask the appropriate questions in order to ascertain the validity of witness testimony. Certain strategies discussed last week can be employed to discredit witnesses; however, each testimony should be reviewed upon its own merits. There are cases where each of us could sit on a jury and render a verdict based on the testimony of eyewitnesses. As I outlined last week, I think there is little reason to believe that the disciples did not truly deem their discourses to be true. As such, I think it less crucial to try to denigrate the validity of the witnesses and much more important to view the claims of the witnesses.
2. Even if we presume the testimony is true, it only serves to illustrate that the early witnesses believed. Similar beliefs have been documented throughout history and the beliefs should, therefore, be taken with a grain of salt.
Certainly Christians did not invent martyrdom; nor did they invent the idea of deism. Christianity remains one religion among many that claims to know the truth. In recent years, martyrdom is more closely associated with Islam than with Christianity. Mormons are more closely associated with evangelism. Yet, in many cases the teachings of each of these religions are diametrically opposed to one another. It’s abundantly clear, therefore, that mere belief does not amount to truth. Furthermore, even in modern times we can see millions of people who are willing to follow “miracle workers” – some of whom have been thoroughly discredited. These people are willing to share this “truth” with others resulting in the massive and rapid expansion of a new faith that can easily be shown to be false. The issue, then, is whether something exists to set Christianity apart.
I’ll single out Islam and Mormonism because they have two undeniable commonalities with Christianity: a rapid expanse and devout followers. As with the Christian martyrs, there can be little doubt that those Muslims who sacrifice themselves for their beliefs truly carry that belief. It doesn’t take a long discussion with a Mormon evangelist to realize that he truly believes the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.
Both Islam and Mormonism claim millions of devotees and both cannot be true as they teach contradictory ideas (issues of whether God would honor “sincere” belief aside). So, it follows logically that at least one must be false and that therefore millions and millions of people have been duped into believing unfounded claims. If millions of people possess a want to follow, it seems that mere promises and/or attested truths are adequate to sway hoards of people. In fact, I would argue that the populous of each major world religion is undeniable proof that the VAST majority of people do not root their beliefs in facts; rather, the beliefs are founded in desire, tradition, or self-interest. Christianity is no exception to this rule, and that fact alone is enough to cause many to group religions together as one basic belief in a higher power.
How, then, can we possibly say that any number of witnesses or martyrs are sufficient to demonstrate the truth of Christianity when it seems that the same arguments could be made to “prove” Islam and Mormonism to be true? Though this is generally how the question is presented to me, I think the question itself is misleading. Islam and Mormonism both promote certain “truths.” The “truths” themselves, however, are not based on acts or even a revelation to many; rather, they are based on the written testimony of a single person. In both cases, the witness claims no supernatural abilities (aside from the ability to consort supernaturally with God) and hence needs only to convince others of his own revelation.
Central to Islam and to Mormonism are the claims of a single prophet who, in both instances, went to meditate in a secluded are and was granted the Word of God via interaction with an angel (Joseph Smith through Moroni and Muhammad through Gabriel). This knowledge was shared with others along with promises of heaven for those who accepted the ideas. Many of the claims of Mormonism have been directly refuted with verifiable data. Islam is largely based on the refutation of the resurrection of Jesus about 600 years after the fact. In no other historical cases do we accept data submitted 600 years after an event over primary source documentation of witnesses. Mormonism is especially difficult to contest directly because it makes the claim that truth stems from an ambiguous and unfalsifiable “burning in the bosom” one receives when reading the Book of Mormon. In both of these cases, it is necessary to presuppose God’s existence then to appeal to God for substantiation of the believer’s beliefs. After all, the revelation was granted only to one man. As you might imagine, it is often the case that God grants substantiation in the mind of the believer.
The question should not focus on whether the adherents truly believe. After all, each religion claims numerous devotees who believe in a plethora of ideas and history has shown that people will believe any number of self-serving ideas and promises, both religious and non-religious. The question, rather, should focus on what the adherents truly believe. The most notable difference between Christianity and other religions is simply the scope of the claims. As an illustration, I would like to use an antagonistic comment from a few weeks ago. The comment was simply that the circumstances regarding Abraham Lincoln’s assassination are rarely disputed because the claim itself pales in comparison to the claim, for instance, that Lincoln invented a perpetual motion machine. The latter claim would require a great deal more evidence. I agree wholeheartedly and I would imagine that the majority of people would also agree to such a statement.
There is a tendency to write off Christianity as one of many myths perpetuated throughout antiquity. The truth of the matter, though, is that the treatment of the early Christians is proof positive that Christianity was not simply another religion to add to the pile. The early Christians made incredible claims… incredible not only to us, but to those who lived in the first century as well. Resurrections weren’t regular events. People did not regularly walk on water, perform miraculous healings, or grant supernatural powers to others. The claims were… well… unbelievable (obviously, I don’t mean this in the literal sense). To believe Jesus to be the messiah, to have performed great miracles, and to have raised Himself from the dead would have required extraordinary evidence, and the collective gospel accounts are the record of this evidence. The only “evidence” necessary in the other two examples would be the convincing nature of the preacher.
The other undeniable difference is the number of early witnesses. Muhammad and Joseph Smith were individuals who managed to sway the minds of thousands. The disciples, on the other hand, spread the same gospel throughout the Roman Empire under constant threat. To presume that all of Jesus’ disciples shared the same profusion of delusions would be silly. To presume that each misremembered the same life-altering events in the same way would be ludicrous. To presume that the group could be duped into seeing Jesus and interacting with Him for 40 days postmortem (on top of the many miracles already purported) would be completely unfounded. To presume that each chose to perpetuate a lie under the threat of death that would bring them absolutely no personal gain flies in the face of our own human experience. The simple truth is that there is no easy way to refute the gospel claims.
Next week, I’ll discuss the historical evidence in greater detail, focusing on those items that are in general consensus among scholars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Hi, Randy-
It is great to see you grapple with the issues sensibly, but then disappointing to see you veer back into lala land towards the end of your post.
In fact, I would argue that the populous of each major world religion is undeniable proof that the VAST majority of people do not root their beliefs in facts; rather, the beliefs are founded in desire, tradition, or self-interest.
The truth of the matter, though, is that the treatment of the early Christians is proof positive that Christianity was not simply another religion to add to the pile.
Weren't these Christians another set of people who wanted to believe? Isn't all we have as testimony their own cultic writings, doubtless as sifted through decades of oral group recounting and story-alignment, not to mention possible one-upmanship among the apostles? Isn't the very earliest document we have of visions of Jesus (those of Paul) fundamentally conflicted, with one (acts) saying he saw a bright light, while another (his own letters) saying he saw Jesus in some distinct ethereal vision?
The end of the post is an extremly thin reed to hang your faith on, and it is faith alone that privileges the Jesus story over the others. Why not believe the Old testament god instead, who is so often attested by many different people, and far more explicitly? You are cherry-picking here from a corpus that is as much historical novel as sober record.
Why not pay attention to the standards of observation that we have today in the modern age? In this age, no miracles occur, period. There is a very good reason for this, which is that no miracles occurred in the past, either. That is because they are physically impossible, which is the entire point of recounting them in wonder-stories.
Randy-
Great post! I think it is worth reiterating that there is a difference between people who die for false beliefs and people who die for a lie. As you pointed out, it is not terribly uncommon for people to be convinced by others of religious “truths” and then die for those beliefs (Muslim terrorists, Branch Davidians, etc.) However, dying for something that you know to be false (because you were actually present at the events in question) is not common. And this is what we’re dealing with when it comes to the disciples.
Therefore, the fact that the disciples truly believed in the resurrection, when they were there to know the real truth, is a very important fact, and a distinguishing fact from other religions in question. This fact allows us to eliminate some possibilities, such as the idea that they simply hid the body and made up the story, or that the resurrection was a later addition. We’re left with trying to determine how the disciples came to their belief. How did all of these men come to believe that they saw something if in fact they did not? What were these “experiences” that so many people claimed to have had?
Certainly this fact of the disciples’ belief alone may not be enough for one to resort to the conclusion that the resurrection in fact took place. But, it is one compelling fact that is difficult to explain away.
Burk-
“Weren't these Christians another set of people who wanted to believe?”
Well, the disciples weren’t Christians at all at this time. They were Jews. And just days prior, when Jesus was arrested, they were all very quick to betray him and run away in fear, like a bunch of cowards who cared much more about themselves than about Jesus and his message. Something drastically changed in these men on the day that they claim he rose from the dead. Even those scholarly critics who deny the resurrection do not deny the fact that these men had real experiences which they believed were of the risen Christ. Gert Lüdemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” So, again we’re left with the question- if Jesus did not rise from the dead, what were these experiences?
“Isn't all we have as testimony their own cultic writings, doubtless as sifted through decades of oral group recounting and story-alignment, not to mention possible one-upmanship among the apostles?”
The very earliest writings we have are from Paul, which can be dated to within a few years of Jesus’ death. Paul was in no way a member of some Jesus following cult. He was a persecutor of Jesus’ followers until he saw the risen Jesus himself. His bias clearly ran the opposite direction until his experience forced a change of heart/mind. This is actually an example of enemy attestation, not a “cultic writing.”
And again, if we agree that the disciples actually believed their claims, there isn’t any story to be “aligned.” To argue for this is to deny that the disciples believed their claims and to fall back on the view that they made it up. It seems to me that one can only hold to one view- either the disciples believed their claim, or they made it up.
The writings we have are plentiful and very early (more so than any other ancient text), early enough that they were all written down during the time when eyewitnesses were still alive.
“In this age, no miracles occur, period.”
Really? Does this mean that you have never experienced a miracle yourself? Or that you have some kind of proof that no one in this age has ever experienced a miracle?
“That is because they are physically impossible, which is the entire point of recounting them in wonder-stories.”
Ah, this clarifies the opinion previously stated. It sounds like you have a philosophical commitment to naturalism, which does not allow for the possibility of miracles, correct? So basically you’re saying that even if you found good evidence that a miracle occurred (say, you saw it with your own eyes), you would still deny it because “they are physically impossible.” This is simply an a priori argument. The conclusion is drawn prior to the consideration of facts.
As to your characterization of the gospels, I'll probably leave my response for next week. I think that I've given quite a few of my own reasons, and I think it's important to introduce the ideas of those who are bona fide historians, so that everything doesn't rest solely on whether you trust my insights.
Kristin,
I honestly don't have a whole lot to add. It is hugely important to grasp the difference between dying for false beliefs and dying for things you know full well are not true. The disciples were witnesses. They were in a position to know the truth. They were, therefore, in a position to know whether they were sacrificing themselves for falsehoods.
It sounds like you have a philosophical commitment to naturalism, which does not allow for the possibility of miracles, correct? So basically you’re saying that even if you found good evidence that a miracle occurred (say, you saw it with your own eyes), you would still deny it because “they are physically impossible.” This is simply an a priori argument. The conclusion is drawn prior to the consideration of facts.
What I have is a commitment to evidence, and to weighing evidence in view of its relative plausibility. You refer to the gospel texts as if they were some kind of unimpeachable source, written by eyewitnesses and recording their objective, scientific observations. Of course that is not the case, being second-hand in the best cases, and extensively re-written, with a multitide of textual additions and emendations even in those best cases. This record is highly suspect, even if one assumes that the original witnesses were being as honest as they could be.
Secondly, the tendency of people to inflate and re-imagine their own experiences is well-known, so the fact that these stories were recorded (in the best case) after decades of gospel-spreading and retelling makes them suspect as well.
Thirdly are the clear precedents/templates in other traditions that you don't take seriously in the least- that Ceasar Augustas was the son of god, that the Buddha attained perfect knowledge, that the Jewish Essene Teacher of Righteousness was called Jesus far back in the 100 to 200 BCE timeframe, etc.
Taken against all that, the current state of scientific observation shows that miracles simply don't happen, and that, taking astronomical observation at its word, the physical characteristics of the universe have been the same for the last several billion years at the very least. Physical chemistry and quantum mechanics all deal in random phenomena- which are really random, not sort-of random, or possibly quasi-directed, but truly random.
So it seems that putting reliable observation against unreliable observation, a reasonable observer would conclude that while Jesus may have existed and many of the comings and goings in acts and the Pauline epistles (the real ones, at least) are true, the miracles are extremely unlikely to be true, as one can easily conclude from the magic stories of Jesus's birth, with its obviously fake star of Bethlehem, and mistranslated "virgin" birth, etc., etc. What of all the "witnesses" of the old testament, seeing the red sea part, the deluge of Noah come down, and the visions of Ezekiel?
You have a lot of sifting to do between the real and the fantasical no matter how dedicated you are to these texts, and I would strongly propose, based on the most reliable evidence in hand, that the line be drawn in accordance with modern understanding of the physics behind all these phenomena.
Indeed, I'd suggest you learn the meaning of the word "charisma" as it applies to religious leaders.
Oh- and I should add that if I saw a miracle, I would indeed be impressed and convinced. But being a scientist and programmer, I can say that everything I have observed indicates its unlikelihood- not only have I never seen such a thing, but there is always a reason for things happening as they do, if you look closely enough, Jesus-tortillas on ebay aside. A good and physically consistent reason. What have you observed in the way of miracles?
“What I have is a commitment to evidence... Oh- and I should add that if I saw a miracle, I would indeed be impressed and convinced”
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you didn’t mean to say that miracles CAN’T happen. You meant that you have never seen good evidence of a miracle, correct? Thanks for clarifying your view. This view allows for evidence before drawing a conclusion, so it seems much more reasonable than what I gathered from your last post.
I certainly do not view the the gospels as an unimpeachable source (and I’m surprised that you could draw such a conclusion from one comment). I view them (in the case of historically determining what happened) just as historians view them, just as I would view any other historical document. And nearly every historian, no matter how skeptical, admits that the documentation we have for the life/resurrection of Jesus is earlier and more plentiful than ANY other ancient event. To have four accounts within seventy years (at the latest) of the event in question is absolutely unprecedented. And there are closer to 11 sources if we give it 100 years. There are many ancient events that we all accept as historical fact that are documented by only one source, a century or more after the fact. So I think it is important to note that the problem most people have is not with the sources or the evidence itself. It’s with the conclusion that evidence points toward.
“Of course that is not the case, being second-hand in the best cases, and extensively re-written, with a multitude of textual additions and emendations even in those best cases.”
Would you mind citing some sources here, rather than simply your opinion? What textual additions are you specifically referring to? The information I have suggests that the manuscripts we have today are over 99% accurate as to their originals. Any additions to the texts made later are really quite obvious, and are labeled appropriately in most modern day Bibles.
“Secondly, the tendency of people to inflate and re-imagine their own experiences is well-known, so the fact that these stories were recorded (in the best case) after decades of gospel-spreading and retelling makes them suspect as well.”
Again, sources please? How many scientific studies have proven that most people have a tendency to misremember events with additional supernatural embellishments?
And again, this argument cannot be used simultaneously with the idea that the disciples truly believed their claim. It can’t be used simultaneously with the idea that the disciples even MADE a claim. It seems necessary to choose either one view or the other here.
Very few NT critics appeal to this argument. Even the atheist and skeptical historians admit that these documents are early and reliable, and therefore conclude that the disciples did in fact see something that drastically changed them.
Skeptic Paula Fredriksen stated, “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something. ” (emphasis mine)
“Thirdly are the clear precedents/templates in other traditions that you don't take seriously in the least- that Ceasar Augustas was the son of god, that the Buddha attained perfect knowledge, that the Jewish Essene Teacher of Righteousness was called Jesus far back in the 100 to 200 BCE timeframe, etc.”
1. Seutonius alluded to the fact that Caesar Augustus was the “son of god” 183 years after Augustus was born. He admitted that he received his information from a single source, a book called Theologumena by Asclepiades of Mendes. We know nothing of this book. So…one source…183 years later…citing an unknown book… You think this claim warrants my attention as much as multiple sources written within 70 years? I’m not sure I see your comparison.
2. The scriptures of Buddhism didn’t appear on the scene until 400 years after the founder’s (Siddhartha Gautama’s) death in 483 BC. The miracles and such of Gautama appear in even later Sanskrit texts. Again, I’m not seeing your comparison.
3. I admittedly don’t know anything about this teacher of righteousness, but in just reading the wikipedia page you referenced, I’m failing to see multiple, early attestations here either.
“the current state of scientific observation shows that miracles simply don't happen”
Science has not and cannot demonstrate anything of the sort. Science is the study of naturalism. I cannot imagine how a study of naturalism could prove the possibility/impossibility of supernaturalism, which is by definition something outside the parameters of what science even studies. Can you clarify how science can prove such a thing?
"How many scientific studies have proven that most people have a tendency to misremember events with additional supernatural embellishments?"
Every scientific study has proven that everyone has a tendency to misremember events WITH additional supernatural embellishments!
Also, this whole thing could be solved right now if you guys could do one supernatural thing, just one. Where's the beef? What does paying 10% a month get you nowadays?
Hi, Kristin-
No time to go on to all your points right now, but really, we didn't have to wait for Seutonius to hear about this one.
I enjoyed the latest post. There is a lot of good thinking in it concerning the nature of human religious beliefs, etc.
On comparing Christianity to Islam and Mormonism:
It is true that Jesus’ followers made big claims about him.
If we accept that Jesus founded his movement (putting aside the idea that Paul, and maybe a few others, are primarily responsible for Christianity as we know it), then we can see that Christianity is based around a lone figure, like Islam and Mormonism. However, a big difference is that the founder of the Christian religion did not write anything down. As Burk mentioned, we have (possibly) second, third and fourth hand accounts created through telling stories, copying, heavily redacting, thorough and liberal exegesis of the Old Testament, etc. If we had a volume from Jesus himself, then we might be able to compare it to Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc.
A bit less “on topic” here.....
“To presume that the group could be duped into seeing Jesus and interacting with Him for 40 days postmortem”
The reference to 40 days is at the beginning of Acts only (I am pretty sure). Mark has no resurrection appearances. Matthew presents a single appearance event (besides the brief appearance to the Marys) that the students of Jesus had to travel to Galilee to experience. Paul describes visions that he, Peter, James, the twelve (as opposed to the eleven in the gospels), and 500 at once had, etc. Paul presents his vision as being of the same quality as the visions of Peter, James, etc.
According to Paul these were spiritual visions. Paul informs us, when discussing the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians, that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom”. Where did Paul get his ideas about the resurrection body, if not from his visions of Christ? However, Luke’s resurrected Jesus says “Touch me and see. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see that I have.”
My point is that perhaps Paul (or perhaps not) is closer to what we call the resurrection, than later followers who wrote accounts to serve their current community. It’s interesting to consider. Did the earliest Christians consider Jesus physically raised or spiritually raised? or both?
I guess my point is that to put "40 days" of resurrection appearances on to the other books of the NT seems a bit hasty.
“raised Himself from the dead”
minor quibble, but Paul, the earliest source, always makes it clear that Jesus “was raised” by God. He did not raise himself.
"What textual additions are you specifically referring to?"
I am guessing that Burk is alluding to Matthew and Luke's (and perhaps John's) embellishment and "cleaning up" of Mark. That may not be all that he is referring to, but that's probably the general idea.
"I am guessing that Burk is alluding to Matthew and Luke's (and perhaps John's) embellishment and "cleaning up" of Mark."
Steven,
Can you be more specific? I don't recall that Matthew and Luke altered Mark's story. I do recall that the books contained information beyond Mark, but it is to be expected that some books would contain more or less information, is it not?
Matthew used Mark as a source. But in this passage Matthew substitutes "the carpenter's son" for Mark's " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary...?" with it implication of Jesus' illegitimacy.
Matthew also substitutes "he did not work many miracles there" for Mark's "He could work no miracle there..."
Other examples:
Matthew deletes Mark's assertion that Jesus declared all foods "clean" (Mark 7:18-23 - Matt. 15:15-20) The author of Matthew believed in strict Torah observance. (Matt 7:17-20) Some may think that Matthew means this metaphorically. It's possible, but I think it likely that he means it when says Jesus is calling followers to an even stricter observance of the Law.
Matthew change the absolute prohibitions against divorce to permit it in cases of unchastity (Mark 10:11-12 - Matt. 5:31-32).
Also, Matthew adds a speech by John the Baptist to Mark's account of Jesus' baptism. In Mark, John simply baptized Jesus. In Matthew, John protests as being unworthy to baptize Jesus.
One could argue that Matthew had a source telling him thtis speech that John the Baptist made 50-60 years earlier, but this is far-fetched. Matthew is writing a theological story, and this addition sticks with the the overall goal of Matthew - to add emphasis to Jesus' power and the supernatural nature of his mission to his Markan source
Steven,
"...then we can see that Christianity is based around a lone figure, like Islam and Mormonism."
Actually, both Muhammad and Smith would be further removed from God. Both received revelations from God via an angel, whereas the disciples received revelations from Jesus. Paul also received his revelation directly from Jesus. Multiple people attested to having witnessed Christ directly, and a few additional sources attested to having witnessed the disciples. I don't think it's fair to draw the comparison. Jesus' claims weren't just claims. The disciples are said to have witnessed His miracles thus proving His divinity. This is significantly different from the attestations of Muhammad and Smith.
CHRISTIANITY
God -> Disciples and Paul (1)
Disciples and Paul -> Written word (2)
+
Disciples and Paul -> Scribes (2)
Scribes -> Written word (3)
ISLAM
God -> Gabriel (1)
Gabriel -> Muhammad (2)
Muhammad -> Scribes (3)
Scribes -> Written word (4)
All monotheistic religions center around a "lone figure."
Regarding the post-resurrection appearance, let's cast all doubt on the time frame of 40 days and just assume that Jesus only met with them *ahem* after his death,
for a day or two. We're focusing on the slightly less important piece of the puzzle here.
We'll get to Paul shortly. He's way too fun for the Comments section alone.
I just don't see the problem here. That Mark contains the least amount of information is not up for debate. What claim are you making? By that I mean, what is the significance, in your mind, of the added text?
"Multiple people attested to having witnessed Christ directly"
We have the words of Paul, and the anonymous words of non-eyewitness gospel writers, claiming that multiple people witnessed the risen Christ.
I do think that many people probably claimed visions of Christ, like Paul did, but we don't have any words from them. "Multiple attestations" can't really be called multiple if they are not independent accounts. Of course, this is debatable. Which parts of Luke, Matthew and John are not directly dependent on Mark's original form? Did Matthew have an eyewitness stating the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee or did he find the end of Mark to be unsatisfying, and knowing of reports of visions of Jesus, did he "literalize" those stories by creating the appearance to the Mary's and to the disciples in Galilee? Interesting stuff to consider.
The point with the Mark/Matthew stuff is that Matthew felt free to edit his source in order to serve the theological agenda of his historical fiction. I was just pointing out what Burk was probably referring to in his comment, as questioned by Kristin. I realize that you might think it likely that Matthew's additions were the result of source information. But, because the additions are thematic and include very liberal exegesis of the Old Testament as well, we might also conclude that he is writing to present Jesus as he wants to present him - the source may not be directly connected to the historical Jesus, but could be himself (through prayer and direct experience with the "risen" Christ?) or through his community's traditions.
I agree that the origin of Christianity is distinct from Islam and Mormonism in many ways. I was trying to point out another significant way. For instance The Koran would be more like the NT, if Mohammed had never written anything down, but had rather prophesied, led military campaigns, and ascended to heaven on a horse......and then a generation or two later, people wrote the Koran. Perhaps, if this had been the case, the later followers would have created more mythical stories about Mohammed's deeds. But who knows?
Conversely, If Jesus had written down things directly, I suspect that, for instance, he might not have said things that John attributed to him 60-70 years later. But it's debatable.
"God -> Disciples and Paul (1)"
I realize that Paul had a high Christology, but he did not think that Jesus was God. He though Jesus was of a "type" like Adam, a pivotal figure that God glorified because of his righteousness. God exalted Christ, raising him from the dead. Jesus was God's perfect servant.
Hi, Kristan-
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you didn’t mean to say that miracles CAN’T happen. You meant that you have never seen good evidence of a miracle, correct? Thanks for clarifying your view. This view allows for evidence before drawing a conclusion, so it seems much more reasonable than what I gathered from your last post.
Actually, this really amounts to the same thing. I have never witnessed a true miracle. Nor has anyone else in a reliable fashion in the present day. Nor does basic physical theory allow miracles. Thus we are stuck with the simple presumption that miracles are impossible, as a scientific conclusion, couched in the usual tentative terms of science ... until some contradictory observation comes along.
With billions of people in the world today, and most of them eager for miracles of some form, it has to be odd in the extreme that such things do not happen, doesn't it? I chalk it all up to confirmations of the kind of rigorous observation and induction performed by physics, and conclude that the weight of evidence is hugely on my side here, allowing us to project similar prohibitions of miracles back billions, let alone thousands, of years.
And there are closer to 11 sources if we give it 100 years. There are many ancient events that we all accept as historical fact that are documented by only one source, a century or more after the fact. So I think it is important to note that the problem most people have is not with the sources or the evidence itself. It’s with the conclusion that evidence points toward.
It is important to clarify what we mean by historical fact. The best we can do is probabilities, due to the problematic nature of eye-witnessing, writing, transmitting, etc. This will never be like lab experiments and repeated observations. That Augustas lived has extremely high probability, due to hundreds of contemporaneous records- on stone, in every historian of the time, in coins, soon thereafter in Tacitus, etc. In comparison, what we have for Jesus is far, far, more thin. Mark is written about 40 or 50 years after the events it records, Paul's authentic work is about 20 years after the events (in very rough terms). Acts records the movement after Jesus's death. In none of these cases do we have original manuscripts, but copies made later.
That is really it, (unless you count the Gospel of Thomas as early). Luke and Matthew are mostly copyists of Mark, adding in few historical elements, and John, well, is not a historian at all and writing much later. On balance, it seems pretty clear that someone like Jesus lived and inspired the movement, but the probability is not nearly so high as that of, say, Augustas, since contemporaneous and objective records (objects) are absent. That is why shrouds and ossuaries, and other false relics are such an industry and inspire such hope.
Would you mind citing some sources here, rather than simply your opinion?
I'll just refer to Bart Ehrman here, who has made this his life work. He has no problem with the historicity of Jesus, but documents extensive problems with the textual traditions. Since all we have to go on are later copies of texts by highly biased writers recording stories from the presumed eyewitnesses, who were themselves highly biased, it is not a clean record. We can pick out quite a bit of good from it, as the Jesus seminar folks have tried to do. But as for the routine miracle stories, etc., there is really no compelling need to take them seriously over our much better grounded current knowledge.
The information I have suggests that the manuscripts we have today are over 99% accurate as to their originals.
That is great, but one has to ask whether, if later texts had numerous alterations, some quite serious, and what you claim here as "originals" are not originals at all, let alone inbiased eyewitness accounts, but later (precious) copies of second-hand stories, later further embellished in the hands of Luke, Matthew and John, isn't it possible that errors of transmission, bias, and good-old tall-tale-telling had already crept into what you regard as "original"?
How many scientific studies have proven that most people have a tendency to misremember events with additional supernatural embellishments?
I don't think there is any shortage of scholarly literature on this. Misremembering is easy- just ask any fisherman, Christian or not. The supernatural elements come from cultural conditioning, such as from the Egyptians who believed so strongly in resurrection of some kind, whose cults were becoming so popular at this time. And the Essenes who form an important backdrop for the Jesus story (random link). Here is a nice discussion of cultural and psychic precedents from even a pro-Christian source.
And again, this argument cannot be used simultaneously with the idea that the disciples truly believed their claim. It can’t be used simultaneously with the idea that the disciples even MADE a claim. It seems necessary to choose either one view or the other here.
Very few NT critics appeal to this argument. Even the atheist and skeptical historians admit that these documents are early and reliable, and therefore conclude that the disciples did in fact see something that drastically changed them.
People see things that change them on LSD. That is not an unusual occcurrence, and also happens in the presence of charismatic preachers, like the Herbalife folks. Such change by no means implies that they saw something counter-physical. Indeed, one might make a strong statement the other direction, and say that when someone has a mystical interior experience, (Francis Collins's experience with a tri-partitite waterfall comes to mind), one is motivated to retell the experience in a counter-physical way to give it proper metaphorical expression and indicate its immense power. Paul of Tarsus "saw" Jesus, but was that any more than a wonderful and life-changing mystical experience, perhaps even traceable to something like temporal lobe epilepsy? In all likelihood, no.
I don't want to speculate at great length about what might really have gone on in the apostles minds after the death of Jesus, after their various attempts at forming churches, after decades of oral traditions, and after telling their stories to Mark (or to whoever in turn told Mark) and the writers of acts. But it gives plenty of space twixt cup and lip for just the kinds of amplifications that would have made their stories as effective as they have turned out to be. Remember that goal one was proselytization.
..cont... (sorry to go on so long)
Science has not and cannot demonstrate anything of the sort. Science is the study of naturalism. I cannot imagine how a study of naturalism could prove the possibility/impossibility of supernaturalism, which is by definition something outside the parameters of what science even studies. Can you clarify how science can prove such a thing?
Ah- that is a very good question. What we have in supernaturalism is a variety of claims all of which have the property that something happens that is contrary to physical laws as we currently understand them. That is why I termed such claims "counter-physical" above. These claims directly conflict with known science. Resurrection of someone after being dead three days is not physically possible, unless they are in some quasi-alive state- coma, etc. No need to go into all the bizarre medical possibilities. The whole point was to proclaim something generally believed (as it is still today) to be impossible, though fervently wished-for. Seeing visions of someone after they ahve dies is not impossible at all, incidentally. That may well be what happened, at least to Paul.
Ditto with multiplying the fishes and loaves, walking on water, etc. etc. Now all these are, from our current standpoint, scientific claims. If someone today were to be walking on water, the first scientist to run out there a publish a paper would win a nobel prize. The scientific regularities we currently observe in the universe absolutely prohibit this kind of thing. And we know from astronomical observation and geology, biology, etc., that these physical laws have been extremely stable- for billions of years, not just thousands. Ergo, supernatural claims are directly conflicting with scientific knowledge, and are refuted by it. Indeed, the whole psychic phenomena research field is devoted explicitly to finding cracks in the physical law paradigm, and has not been able to.
.. (I'm done now)
Post a Comment