There are five principle Biblical facts that are agreed upon by a strong majority of secular and Christian scholars, four of which are granted by an overwhelming majority (the fifth – that Jesus’ tomb was empty – is granted by about 75% of scholars, and will be excluded from our analysis). This week, I want to focus not on my own justifications, but on the scholarship of those best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand. I will then present several of the most common “miracles-not-necessary” explanations for Biblical events (most of which have been employed in the Comments section of this blog) and see how they stack up against the “four.”
Quick Lesson: The Conversions of Paul and James (short version)
I’ll discuss both Paul and James in subsequent blogs; however, I think it is important to give a brief synopsis of their respective conversions since we have not yet discussed either of their stories. James was the son of Mary and Joseph (commonly called Jesus’ “half brother”). The Bible records clearly that James did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, but that he came to believe purportedly after Jesus’ appearance to him. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. The Bible recounts specifically that Paul was present during Stephen’s martyrdom. But both Luke and Paul record that a sudden transformation occurred when Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Following this encounter, Paul devoted his life to spreading the gospel and was eventually martyred for these beliefs.
Minimal Facts
As an aside, my normal approach to this blog is to formulate my own ideas and arguments and to reference source material for additional support when I am unable to answer my own challenges. I confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoy the historical studies surrounding early Christianity and have read avidly on this subject. I turned 30 a couple of weeks ago, and one of my gifts was a book on the historicity of the resurrection (thanks, Hon). Included in this book were the “minimal facts” we’ll be examining this week. The book’s material coincided wonderfully with where we are in the blog, so I thought, Why reinvent the wheel?
The criteria for the four minimal facts are as follows. They must:
A. Be remarkably well-attested on many grounds which may comprise authenticity criteria including:
• Multiple, independent sources
• Attestation by neutral sources or enemies
• Details of embarrassment (i.e. details that would serve to weaken one’s position in the eyes of one’s audience)
• Eyewitness testimony (over second- and third-hand sources)
• Early testimony.
B. Be granted by virtually all scholars including scholars whose conclusions differ from Christian scholars.
The four minimal facts we’ll be looking at are as follows:
• Jesus died by crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
• The church persecutor Paul converted to Christianity from a strong anti-Christian position.
• Jesus’ skeptic brother, James, underwent a sudden and dramatic transformation.
I have focused in past weeks upon offering evidence for two of these facts (belief more so than crucifixion), and will in future weeks provide arguments for the conversions of Paul and James.
To reiterate, I have devoted a lot of my blog material on giving evidence for the historicity of the Biblical texts, and will continue to do so in subsequent weeks. This week I want to focus on the possible explanations for the minimal facts and any shortfalls we might encounter with various explanations. So, let’s press on with the premise that the four minimal facts are true. If you take umbrage with any of the four, know that you are among a very small minority. Being in the minority doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it is probably worthwhile to reinvestigate the supporting evidence if you find yourself in a lonely place.
Hypothesis # 1: They made it all up
Quick Lesson: The Conversions of Paul and James (short version)
I’ll discuss both Paul and James in subsequent blogs; however, I think it is important to give a brief synopsis of their respective conversions since we have not yet discussed either of their stories. James was the son of Mary and Joseph (commonly called Jesus’ “half brother”). The Bible records clearly that James did not believe Jesus to be the messiah, but that he came to believe purportedly after Jesus’ appearance to him. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. The Bible recounts specifically that Paul was present during Stephen’s martyrdom. But both Luke and Paul record that a sudden transformation occurred when Paul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Following this encounter, Paul devoted his life to spreading the gospel and was eventually martyred for these beliefs.
Minimal Facts
As an aside, my normal approach to this blog is to formulate my own ideas and arguments and to reference source material for additional support when I am unable to answer my own challenges. I confess, however, that I thoroughly enjoy the historical studies surrounding early Christianity and have read avidly on this subject. I turned 30 a couple of weeks ago, and one of my gifts was a book on the historicity of the resurrection (thanks, Hon). Included in this book were the “minimal facts” we’ll be examining this week. The book’s material coincided wonderfully with where we are in the blog, so I thought, Why reinvent the wheel?
The criteria for the four minimal facts are as follows. They must:
A. Be remarkably well-attested on many grounds which may comprise authenticity criteria including:
• Multiple, independent sources
• Attestation by neutral sources or enemies
• Details of embarrassment (i.e. details that would serve to weaken one’s position in the eyes of one’s audience)
• Eyewitness testimony (over second- and third-hand sources)
• Early testimony.
B. Be granted by virtually all scholars including scholars whose conclusions differ from Christian scholars.
The four minimal facts we’ll be looking at are as follows:
• Jesus died by crucifixion.
• Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
• The church persecutor Paul converted to Christianity from a strong anti-Christian position.
• Jesus’ skeptic brother, James, underwent a sudden and dramatic transformation.
I have focused in past weeks upon offering evidence for two of these facts (belief more so than crucifixion), and will in future weeks provide arguments for the conversions of Paul and James.
To reiterate, I have devoted a lot of my blog material on giving evidence for the historicity of the Biblical texts, and will continue to do so in subsequent weeks. This week I want to focus on the possible explanations for the minimal facts and any shortfalls we might encounter with various explanations. So, let’s press on with the premise that the four minimal facts are true. If you take umbrage with any of the four, know that you are among a very small minority. Being in the minority doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it is probably worthwhile to reinvestigate the supporting evidence if you find yourself in a lonely place.
Hypothesis # 1: They made it all up
It isn’t so much that this theory doesn’t offer conclusions consistent with the four minimal facts. This directly contradicts two of the minimal facts and provides no explanation for the sudden conversions of Paul or James.
Hypothesis # 2: They made some of it up
Again, we see that this idea is in direct conflict with one of the minimal facts. We don’t even need to delve into why it doesn’t explain the conversions of Paul and James.Hypothesis #3: Visions and Delusions
This is sort of the “old-time revival” theory. People gather together in a little church and all of the sudden one becomes possessed by the Holy Spirit. Before too long, they’re all possessed by the Spirit, writhing on the floor in a collective blissful state as the Spirit overwhelms them. Sometimes the preacher does things from a compulsion “by the Spirit” that are incredibly un-Christ-like. So, I think it’s fair to conclude that – certainly in some of these scenarios – they experienced a state induced by their own emotions and not one induced by the Spirit. Following logically, we can conclude that masses of people can be coerced by the actions and beliefs of others into feeling things that aren’t really there.Generally, when this is equated to the disciples, it’s assumed that in their grief-stricken state, one or more began to reflect on Jesus’ prediction and began to see Jesus in visions or hallucinations brought about by mental trauma. The trouble here is three-fold. First, while masses of people may be duped by illusions or may be incited to feel as though they have been possessed by spirits, it’s quite a leap from either of these recorded instances to interacting and eating with a risen messiah. That type of delusion is simply unequaled. Second, though you could make the argument that James was grief-stricken, he did not believe Jesus to be the messiah and would not, therefore, have been in the same boat as the disciples. Last, it’s a wild stretch to presume that Saul of Tarsus was so affected. That would be a far-reaching case of mass delusion… I think we’re one step removed from assuming that a hallucination-inducing cloud (a la Star Trek) was sweeping across the hills causing people to see Jesus.
Hypothesis #4: The Bias of the Disciples
There are a number of problems with this theory. First and foremost, if Jesus was not a miracle-working messiah, what in the world did the disciples have to be biased toward? I gave a fuller argument to this notion in another blog post, so I won’t rehash the entire thing here, but sufficed to say this notion is circular. Secondly, if anything, Paul and James both had a bias against Jesus. Paul was merrily hunting Christians in the name of God and James thought his dear brother was a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The bias theory does nothing to account for the conversion of either Paul or James since neither of them believed in Jesus’ divinity until after His death; rather, both purport to have witnessed the risen Christ and to have turned to Christ following this interaction.
Hypothesis #5: The Stuff of Legends
Hypothesis #5: The Stuff of Legends
The principle fallacy with this theory is that Paul’s accounts and the gospel accounts are dated to within a very short time of Jesus’ death. Paul makes it clear that he and the disciples met only a few years after Jesus’ death. Both Paul and Luke make clear allusions to pre-existing oral accounts that bear the same message. To go, in a few short years, from nice guy to messiah in the minds of so many witnesses is just unfathomable. Legend just doesn’t develop this way.Further, this theory necessitates that the disciples indeed did not preach Jesus’ resurrection after His death. It also fails to explain the conversions of Paul and James. Both of them were around to hear the story when Jesus was alive and didn’t buy it. It also doesn’t make sense that Paul would attest to his role in the death of one of Jesus’ followers (before his conversion) because Stephen was sharing the story of a nice guy who wasn’t the messiah or who didn’t rise from the dead. Nor would it make sense that Paul and the other Christians were persecuted so vigorously unless they were already attesting to the risen Christ.
Hypothesis #6: Just another Dying and Rising God
This particular theory can be rather infuriating because it’s simply incoherent at all levels. Somehow or another, a popular author or internet blogger latched onto this one and it spread like wildfire. The only truth here is that it acknowledges that Jesus did indeed die. The similarities between the resurrection story and stories like those of Osiris and Adonis have been woefully embellished. And the kicker? The ones most often referenced occurred after Jesus. Who’s borrowing from whom?Hypothesis #7: The Stolen Body of Jesus
The disciples attested to seeing the risen Christ, not to assuming the risen Christ. This theory offers absolutely no evidence for the conversions of Paul and James. It’s really just another explanation for the empty tomb, which I excluded from the minimal facts.Hypothesis #8: Jesus Did Not Really Die
If He didn’t die, He certainly didn’t die by crucifixion, and without death, resurrection makes no sense. So, this claim directly counters two of the minimal facts. The lack of evidence for the conversions is secondary.Conclusion
The evidence for the minimal facts is almost universally recognized as true, and the structure of these facts is such that any attempt to explain away one of these extraordinary events falls woefully short of explaining another. I’m not trying simply to dismiss explanations with no grounds. It feels as though the only reason to dismiss the gospel claims is an a priori assumption that they cannot be true.
Posts
33 comments:
Hi, Randy-
I think you'll note that three of your four facts concern internal states/beliefs of people. The most skeptical can freely grant that these beliefs happened without granting that they have any sound basis. Joseph Smith thought that God spoke to him (or at least blogged to him), and he is/was hardly alone. That is why Dawkins called his book the God Delusion, not the God Observation.
The fact that quite a few people were overcome with similar delusions (at least as reported well after the fact), stands as an interesting factor in history, and a prime reason why Christianity became very successful. It also may reflect the charismatic powers of Jesus himself, or the particularly frevent imaginations at work (which already had "experienced" so many dubious miracles of healing, resurrection (Lazarus), etc.), or it may (also) reflect a great deal of pre-implanted assumptions about messaiahs and gifted spiritual leaders inherited from the Essenes and elsewhere in the region, or also it may reflect the desperation of Jews stuck in an intolerable political situation.
Plenty of factors lend credibility to explanations that remain within the realm of physical reality, rather than escaping it. And that is important, since unless you have some amazing knowledge of physics that the rest of us don't have, escaping it doesn't happen, and would have been impossible back then just as it is today ... while escaping it imaginatively was and remains quite possible.
Burk,
I enumerated some clear distinctions between Mr. Smith and Simon, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Nathaniel, Matthew, Thomas, James, Simon, Judas, Paul, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc last week. And I addressed specifically the delusion theory this week. It's simply a poor explanation.
Again, it seems that you're stating "the supernatural is impossible because the supernatural just can't happen." That's an a priori assumption that is unproven. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to give any plausible explanation for the origins of the universe without calling upon something that "[escapes the] realm of physical reality."
What evidence is there that James underwent a "sudden and dramatic transformation" rather than his beliefs developing over time?
As far as I can tell, this argument originates with Gary Habermas’ book Historical Jesus.
As you can see, the minimal facts (”MF”) argument takes the following form:
1. Lots of biblical scholars generally agree that various things recorded in the Bible actually occurred in real life — a) Jesus really lived; b) Jesus really died by crucifixion; c) Jesus’s disciples, as well as Paul and James the brother of Jesus all had some sort of real experiences that changed their lives; and d) Jesus’ tomb was found empty.
2. Therefore, those events are “facts.”
3. Accordingly, the nonbeliever bears the burden of proof to offer a well-defined secular hypothesis explaining the asserted “facts.” (Epologetics says: “Though nearly 2000 years have passed, not a single naturalistic explanation has been given that can account for the minimal facts. If you have any explanation that accounts for the known facts without the resurrection, I (and many, many others) would love to hear it.”)
4. The MF apologist will then pick apart arguments that generally fall under the category of theistic rationalism (that is, the Christianity of Thomas Jefferson and others) — arguments that presume the authenticity of the Bible but search for naturalistic explanations of the miraculous events recorded therein. One particularly favored punching bag is the so-called “swoon hypothesis,” which suggests that Jesus did not really die on the cross but instead fell unconscious and merely looked dead.
5. Therefore, the MF apologist concludes that the Biblical resurrection is the best explanation for these “facts” by default.
I have serious problems with each phase of this argument.
1. First, Habermas is essentially trying to conduct a meta-analysis of the historical literature. My understanding from the IG podcast is that Habermas continually updates a database of “biblical scholars” (as defined by him) and then marks fields as to whether that scholar agrees or disagrees with a particular asserted “fact.” This allows him to then sum up all the fields and conclude that 95% of his population accept “fact” A, 90% accept fact B, 70% accept fact C, and so on.
As an overview, note that Habermas’s methodology falls far short of the basics of performing meta-analysis in the social sciences and would not, for example, pass peer review in a secular academic journal. Wikipedia nicely summarizes some of the basics required for a formal meta-analysis. Habermas’s approach is really closer to a simple literature review, whereby the author summarizes the current state of the relevant research in their field to give the reader a “one-stop-shopping” kind of approach. (Lit reviews are great, but they don’t establish facts, which is Habermas’s goal.)
But I don’t want to limit my criticism of this model to form; it’s not just that Habermas is summarizing where he should be regressing. Fundamentally, the problem is that a meta-analysis is only as good as the underlying data being aggregated. Most “biblical scholars” are, by definition, believing Christians: why would you spend your entire adult professional life researching something if you think it’s ultimately worthless?
The underlying problem is one of selection bias: if an intelligent and informed person thinks the Bible is probably true and therefore significant, he or she is more likely to pursue a career in biblical study and then publish his or her findings (confirming that the Bible is true). If, however, an identically-qualified person thinks the Bible is probably false and therefore not significant, he or she is dramatically less likely to trundle off to seminary regardless, and is exponentially less likely to publish his or her findings confirming that the Bible is false. Robert M. Price is the rare exception — someone who finds Christianity to be false historically but nevertheless powerfully inspiring, and therefore worth devoting his life to studying. (Richard Carrier is another exception — someone who finds Christianity to be false and is active in the atheist community. But these are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule.)
Those exceptions aside, the basic selection bias principle at work is clear: if you think Jesus was a well-meaning legend, you’re not likely to spend the time and money getting the sort of credentials that will let you in to Habermas’s study. A powerful example of this selection bias at work is the exclusion of Earl Doherty, whom Carrier described as “one of the most expert amateurs I have ever encountered.” But Doherty — who only has undergraduate degrees in History and Classical Languages, not Ph.Ds — doesn’t qualify as a biblical scholar, and so he’s out.
Please note here that I am not trying to impugn the character of Dr. Habermas — even though he’s the one who designed the selection criteria and he’s the one who gets to decide whether X scholar is in or out. The field itself is a sufficient gatekeeper; it doesn’t need to have Habermas put his thumb on the scale.
Thus, even if Habermas were to read this blog and allow Doherty in to his study, his underlying methodology is designed to marginalize Doherty’s contributions — which is the exact opposite of what a good literature review or meta-analysis would do. If Habermas sets his threshold at 90% (and in practice it’s set much lower; see below), then so long as a Christian is just nine times more likely to attend seminary than a non-Christian, the skeptic will be dispersed like a drop of ink in a glass of milk.
(continued)
That’s not an accident; that’s the whole point of Habermas’s exercise. That’s why you’ll hear Habermas refer repeatedly to liberal theologians in his presentation, saying things like, “The Jesus Seminar folks are not sympathetic to my cause, and even they agree….” Well, true. But the Jesus Seminar folks are liberal Christians, not atheists. As ex-Jesus Seminar fellow Bob Price notes, among Jesus Seminar fellows, their “methods and assumptions differ little from those [conservative Biblical scholars] and his allies use,” and most Jesus Seminar fellows are “far less skeptical, less methodologically rigorous, than Rudolf Bultmann and the critics of the previous generation.”
In other words: Habermas’s argument is a strategy for ignoring Biblical critics outside the mainstream, by padding the universe from which his meta-analysis is drawn with Christians. At its core, Habermas can tell us what Christians believe, but not what actually happened. I expand on this immediately below.
2. Second, I think Habermas avoids calling his methodology a meta-analysis because he doesn’t want to call attention to the huge leap of logic here at step two. For comparison, let’s take a look at a really simple meta-analysis: one compiling statistics on various prospects on the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team. (I’m a Rays fan.)
Link
Go ahead and click on that link and you’ll see an excellent example of what even a simple meta-analysis is supposed to do. As it turns out, there are a number of recognized “experts” in picking baseball prospects — Keith Law at ESPN, Baseball America, Kevin Goldstein at Baseball Prospectus, and so on. Now each of these people share a pretty common set of background principles, but they’re all different in their approaches, and so each one will put out “prospect lists” that differ slightly from each other.
By aggregating all of the data across all of the prospect lists, the Rays Index people use meta-analysis to tell the fan something interesting. For example, all of their sources list David Price as the #1 prospect on the Rays. Half call Tim Beckham as the second-best prospect, another third of them say it’s Wade Davis, and one guy says it’s Desmond Jennings. And so on.
The meta-analysis part comes in the “TVI” column on the right, which summarizes the overall value placed on prospects across all of the expert lists. By looking at it, you can see that generally the scouts agree that Price is awesome, with Beckham and Davis right behind him, and Brignac, Hellickson, and Jennings after that. And that tells you something you didn’t know.
But think about what it doesn’t tell you. It doesn’t tell you that Tim Beckham is the second-best prospect on the Rays. Rather, it tells you that in the opinion of the experts who comprise the sample, there’s rough consensus that he’s the second-best prospect. In reality, Beckham is 19 years old. He could get run over by a bus, or hit .100 at A-ball, or whatever and turn out to be one of the very worst players in the Rays’ organization.
In other words: a meta-analysis doesn’t give you facts; it gives you a summary of the data compiled by the sources comprising your universe. Similarly, Habermas’s meta-analysis/literature review doesn’t tell us what actually happened — it tells us what his sources (almost all of whom are Christians) mostly believe to have happened.
Worse, Habermas also concedes that for the linchpin “fact” in his argument — the empty tomb of Jesus — the level of agreement among his sources is not 95% but only 70%. Think about that for a moment. What Habermas is really saying is that, among Christians who have dedicated their lives to studying the Bible, nearly one in three denies the empty tomb!
Isn’t that staggering?? I mean, if three out of every ten biologists denied the common descent of all living animals from a last universal common ancestor, then the creationists would really be on to something. Imagine if three out of every ten cosmologists thought it was possible that the universe was 6,000 years old instead of fourteen billion, or if three out of every ten astronomers thought that the Moon landing was faked, or… you get the idea.
In other words: Habermas’s case is, on close inspection, a powerful argument against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and a good reason for even Christians to take seriously the work of skeptics, such as Robert Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s The Empty Tomb.
3. Third, Habermas’s argument rests on the same sort of god-of-the-gaps inference as other failed apologetics. Even if the items asserted to be “facts” were, indeed, actual facts, it would be reasonable for someone challenged to provide an explanation to say, “I don’t know.”
Imagine that you’re a twelfth-century Viking skeptic, watching a mighty lightning storm. “Eric,” says your religious friend, “if mighty Thor is not creating those thunderbolts by striking Mjolnir against the sky, then what is your secular explanation for lightning?” Knowing nothing of electrons, are you forced to concede the existence of mighty Thor by default? Isn’t, “I don’t know,” in fact, the better answer?
4. Fourth, the sort of secular arguments that Habermas and MF apologists are seeking as potential refutations are, at their core, very strange. I do not think I am mischaracterizing anyone here; check out this apologetics site employing the MF model for example, for a refutation of the swoon hypothesis:
The Swoon Theory (basically that Christ did not actually die on the cross, but only “swooned” and later was rescusitated) is counteracted by medical studies examining death by Crucifixion. The victim dies ultimately of asphyxiation, although their are other contributing factors. The spear wound to Christ’s side was a wound inflicted as a final stroke to insure His death.
Now this is not a straw-man, because there are serious historians and theologians who have offered and defended the swoon hypothesis. But it is nevertheless a very odd argument; essentially, the apologist is saying that if you accept John 19:34 as literally true, then you have to believe Jesus died on the cross. Well, sure. But if John 19:34 is evidence, why not just quote John 19:30, which says that Christ “gave up his spirit” on the cross? Why not just quote John 3:16 and be done with it?
Asking the atheist to offer a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus assuming that the Bible is true is sort of like asking the literary historian to explain why Captain Ahab didn’t just take the Pequod, sail off to Barbados, and spend the rest of his days drinking rum, eating fresh conch, and lying on the beach. I suppose the clever English major could come up with a reason involving Ahab’s fatal pride, but the real reason is: because Herman Melville didn’t write Moby Dick that way!
5. Finally, even if you concede the rest of the argument, Habermas’s conclusion requires you to assess the probability of whatever ad hoc theory you concoct at argument #4 and weigh it against the probability that the resurrection actually occurred. This is conceptually impossible, and not simply for the reasons given by David Hume. Any comparative analysis requires you to assign some nonzero value to Pr(R|B), which is the probability of the resurrection given our background knowledge. If Pr(R|B) is zero, then Pr(R|B&E) — the probability of the resurrection given our background knowledge and some new evidence E — is also zero via Bayes’ theorem.
In other words: the MF apologist must begin with the assumption that the probability of a resurrection given our background knowledge (i.e., that the Bible is not true) is not zero and is therefore possible. For example, Lydia McGrew asserts on page 2 that “…and this is true because the probability that the resurrection took place is virtually nil if there is no God and higher if there is.”
That sounds reasonable on face, but notice the dodge: McGrew asserts that Pr(R|B) is “virtually” nil, which is a clever way of arguing that it is not zero without offering a justification for why Pr(R|B) cannot be zero.
My own assessment is that asking someone to define Pr(R|B) is another way of asking someone whether they believe in God. If you do, you’re likely to say that it’s at least possible. If you don’t, you’re likely to say that it’s zero. But nobody has a rigorous argument for why Pr(R|B) is nonzero — at least, not one that I’ve seen — and so therefore I conclude that Habermas’s argument, even if corrected for the myriad flaws identified above, amounts to nothing more than a tautology. If you believe in Jesus going in, you’ll conclude that the resurrection hypothesis “is more likely” an explanation than secular alternatives; if you don’t, you won’t.
In other words, Assessing Pr(R|B) is just another way of asking someone whether they believe in God.
Daniel,
First, I thought this was an excellent (though lenthy) analysis and was very well put together. I truly enjoyed reading your counter arguments and I appreciate your artful use of terminology and your cunning example with the Tamps Bay Rays.
This synopsis of my argument, however, isn't entirely correct. Accepting scholarly evidence based solely on the fact that it is from a scholar is a bad practice and one that I do not emply. The minimal facts are also backed by the 5 criteria I cited in the blog post; still, I appreciate your thoughts here because it is precisely the type of study you’re alluding to that perturbs me greatly (I notice everyday that news stories use ridiculous “data” to back their contents and it bothers me to no end). I am gratified to know that others out there recognize that not all “studies” should be taken at face value. This is why I’ve been applying my own reason to the evidence over the past several weeks and will continue to do so for the next few. I have no intention of presenting the minimal facts without evidence, and I tried to elucidate that notion in my post.
I would like to note that, though you are correct in asserting that the proponderance of Biblical scholars are Christians, Jewish and Muslim scholars, too, have great reason for studying Biblical history and many of the respondants here study Biblical history with fervor, but do not accept its contents. Christians are not the only group with reason to study New Testament and are certainly not the only scholars refernced by Dr. Habermas. (I listened to an interview with Habermas recently where he gave more difnitive numbers on the actual non-Christian scholars he cites rather off-handedly in his book. I’ll try to relay those numbers to you shortly, because it was that interview that gave me the confidence to post this blog.)
...continued...
In regards to the empty tomb, I think that there is no direct evidence for the empty tomb, and that the evidence is based largely on the embarassing criteria of “the testimony of women.” In fairness, I did exlude that fact in my own analysis and Habermas calls it “Plus 1” in his analysis. Plus, not having enough evidence to call it “fact” is not tantamount to denial. Further, this statistic seems to me to point away from your claims. There is one fact that I would think the “biased” scholars would want to prove above all else: the empty tomb. It would seem, then, that if the scholarship was centered upon bias, this “fact” would certainly make its way into the 90+ percentile. I would argue, though, that I think it likely that the empty tomb was a reality based on the Biblical evidence, but I, too, am not as confident in this assertion as with the other minimal facts.
Also, in fairness, I did not conclude that the resurrection was true based on these facts, nor did I call probability into question. I did, however, conclude that the other solutions offered are woefully ill-equipped to address the minimal facts and that the evidence for the minimal facts is quite good.
Again, I truly appreciate your insight, and I’ll make it a point in the future not to “put the cart before the horse” by citing scholars prior to giving my own evidence. Great response!
Suppose that Mark made up the empty tomb out of whole cloth. He would need an answer when his audience asked why they had never heard the story before. By giving the role of finders to women, he could say, “Those silly unreliable women ran away without telling anyone so we did not find out that the tomb was empty for a long time.” Rather than being an embarrassment, the unreliability of women as witnesses could be the very reason that Mark chose them.
I don’t pretend to know what was going through Mark’s mind, however I think it is very difficult to be sure that a narrative element that looks embarrassing in a rear view mirror from a distance of two thousand years didn’t serve some important rhetorical function that can no longer be appreciated. I believe that the criteria of embarrassment is a valid tool of historiography, but I don’t think that it can carry as much weight as Christian apologists would like it to.
I would like to know more about the selection of these five criteria. Why five, and not four, or ten? Instead of considering them as five criteria for facts, why should we not look at these as five alleged properties of the type of evidence Habermas finds to be available the Biblical story?
How about criteria regarding unambiguous authorship, or statements made in conflict with what we know, or if documents contain additional elements of fantasy? Why are these not included?
I would also like to know more about “remarkably well-attested” with respect to early testimony. How early is remarkably well-attested? Is this just in comparison to other historical claims? Should the criteria be more stringent if a claim runs counter to physical law?
It is not so much an a priori assumption that the supernatural cannot be true as much as the testing record of the supernatural. Millions of times throughout history supernatural explanations have been offered and just as many times, natural explanations have come forth as the most reasonable explanation.
We have set forth what we call physical laws by way of the most reliable methods yet devised. It would not be prudent to disbelieve or alter these laws by way of a less reliable method.
I want to expand a little on the last two paragraphs I posted above. What I am saying speaks to our methods of knowing. We can all recognize the basic differences in historic methods versus scientific methods; and there is no real contest when comparing the two across dimensions of reliability, accuracy, or validity.
The history championed here is interesting, question raising, detailed, and well preserved when compared to other chapters of ancient history. As described in this blog, there is quality historical information about this time period from a historical perspective. But what you are trying to do is use information gathered historically to overturn theory that is based soundly in the scientific method.
Ideally, it would be nice to have scientific testing of Jesus and his miracles. Unfortunately, this is not available and all we have is (at best) a good historical record. But this unavailability does not necessitate that we lower our standards of evidence when it comes to formulating physical law.
If the laws of thermodynamics were attained through ancient texts that included multiple independent sources, details of embarrassment, eyewitness testimony, and early testimony…; but lacked attestation by neutral or enemy sources, I can see an argument to be had. But this is simply not the case.
The physical laws that are broken by the miracles of Jesus are laws that have been built on a foundation that is greater than historical evidence alone. For it to become most reasonable to amend, deny, alter, reformulate, or replace these laws, evidence will have to come via methods that are greater than or equal to those that set the laws in the first place.
Consider how much stronger the case for miracles would be if we possessed the kind of evidence that was used to construct the laws of physics. This thought experiment would place natural theory and supernatural theory on equal footing and I suspect there would be spectacular reasonable debate. However, the reality is that evidence used to construct the laws of physics is much stronger than the ancient story told here; and this necessitates that you subtract the strength we envisioned at the beginning of this paragraph.
I hope this helps you understand my position as I disagree that it is a mere a priori assumption that prevents me from believing that a rotting carcass sprang back to life (for example). Taking into account the strength of the methods that bring us to understand why carcasses do not spring back to life, it is plainly not the case that inferior methods should persuade us to believe otherwise.
Skyhook,
Have you listened to the debate between Cambridge Philosophy Professor Arif Ahmed and Gary Habermas? You can find the link at Apologetics 315
Among other things, Ahmed argued along the lines that if we had five thermometers reading 200 degrees Celsius in a vat of still water, we would think it more likely that the thermometers were broken than that the water was really that hot because we have much more experience with broken thermometers than with water that defies the laws of physics. By the same token, we have much more experience with eyewitnesses that get stories wrong than we have with people rising from the dead and passing through solid walls.
Habermas had a very tough time.
Vinny,
I have not listened that debate and I am thankful you posted a link. I'll try to give it a listen in the next few days.
I suspect I agree with Ahmed on this.
*to
"The history championed here is interesting, question raising, detailed, and well preserved when compared to other chapters of ancient history. As described in this blog, there is quality historical information about this time period from a historical perspective. But what you are trying to do is use information gathered historically to overturn theory that is based soundly in the scientific method."
Skyhook,
Thank you dearly for this. I don't mean this to be smug (like Aha! You admitted the history was good!). I just mean that the historical evidence is quite good, and it's silly sometimes to have to defend it to lengths that are unparalleled anywhere else. I fully understand your reluctance to "overturn theory" based on sound historical evidence and I think this is a cogent, rational offering.
It's fair to say that these reliable accounts are at odds with reliable scientific observation, and that something's gotta give. I posit that the "miracle" of the universe is sufficient for me to open myself to the supernatural, and that, though natural laws certainly govern natural systems, there likely exists something outside of the natural system and that the natural system shows qualities of design. I want to revisit the idea of design because I don't think I gave it a fair shake (I'm even planning to enter your foray so it should be interesting). Plus, I've been missing the science aspects of the blog too.
A nice summation of this entire enterprise would be that I am attempting a two-pronged attack. On one end, I wish to show that the information conveyed in natural systems indicates intelligence, and that natural laws fall short of explaining the inception of the universe and the design quality therein. On the other end, I want to show that the historical evidence clearly shows to one who is intellectally honest that something really extraordinary happened around 30AD. There’s nothing tricky going on.
“I hope this helps you understand my position as I disagree that it is a mere a priori assumption that prevents me from believing that a rotting carcass sprang back to life (for example). Taking into account the strength of the methods that bring us to understand why carcasses do not spring back to life, it is plainly not the case that inferior methods should persuade us to believe otherwise.”
Fair enough. I’ve made the accusation before that my arguments were dismissed in a flippant manner, and perhaps ascribing the “a priori” label was careless on my end.
To be sure, scientific evidence > modern historical evidence > ancient historical evidence > the “miracle” of the universe used as evidence.
Hmmm... but if scientific evidence leads us to the conclusion that the "miracle" of the universe necessitates an intelligence, wouldn't that change the equation?
Also, I do take issue with your equation in some regard. Both science and history are based on observation, and there are certainly some historical incidents that are more strongly evidenced than, say, evolutionary theory.
Like I said, I'll be revisiting intelligent design probably next post. I imagine we'll have a lot more to talk about then. Should be fun.
[citation needed]
I find it hilarious that you talk to ID in a post that begins with you “want[ing] to focus… on the scholarship of those best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand.”
Bwahahahaha!
Randy and fellow commenters,
All joking aside, I think a good review of evolutionary theory is an excellent idea. I have found this example of science at work to be the most convincing example I have ever encountered.
Since we are all at different stages of learning about this theory, I propose that we pick a book and read it together, rather than moving forward without a common base.
A few months ago, Jerry Coyne published a book titled Why Evolution is True . This book has received excellent reviews as an easy to read and easy to understand introduction to evolution and – why evolution is true.
“If you want a straightforward primer in the experiments and observations that have made evolution the foundational principle of modern biology, this is the book for you.”
-PZ Myers
I have not read the book yet. I think reading this book will offer valuable insights as well as excellent food for thought.
I checked the Metropolitan Library System and this is the book’s status as of the time of posting this comment: DN--On Shelf; ED--Loaned; MC--Loaned; NW--Loaned; SO--On Shelf; VI—Loaned.
What do you think?
I will try to get a copy this weekend.
Your reaction basically epitomizes the manner in which ID is generally treated in academia. As one who spent a great many years working with others in pursuit of publication, I'm disappointed with the treatment of ID. The scientific community is supposed to be a land of open discussion and peer review, but ID is tossed aside because of its conclusions. We'll review this more over the coming weeks, but I think it's sad that (and this time it is most certainly the case) a world view gets in the way of genuine scientific study. I won't say more here because I intend to spend a goodly amount of time on this subject over the next few posts, but I think you're doing yourself a terrible disservice by not examining the evidence.
Randy-
"Genuine scientific study" ... of what? Of how some people can't get their heads around the basic logic of natural selection? Or how some people can't use their imaginations to extrapolate well-documented phenomena to long time scales and prefer to use their imaginations to posit miracles instead? Or how God twiddled with DNA in his spare time to make it look like evolution took place, much like she placed the fossils all in sequence as well? I'd love to hear what you have labored to publish in this field. I hear Dembski recently published paper that ends up making the opposite case from what he intended.
There is nothing to study, because the entire premise of ID is that there is nothing to study- God did it in her customary hidden and supernatural way, and whatever we think we see is not the way it reallyhappened. Not only that, but everyone presently doing science is doing it all wrong, and should just read a little more scripture to find out how humans really came to be. Sorry for being a bit dismissive, but I can't wait to hear your case. With evidence, no less! Perhaps you will find that biologists are unable explain every single dot and dash of biology, past and present! That would be shocking and disturbing!
Randy,
My comment is not so much a treatment of ID as it is a treatment of your statement. You state that you “want[ing] to focus… on the scholarship of those best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand.” Those best suited to understand the evidence of biology are biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, botanists, etc., etc., etc… These are the people best suited for understanding the significance of the evidence at hand, yet you have demonstrated a very poor understanding of what they have to say. While there are some very silly things coming out of the ID camp, what I found to be hilarious is the irony displayed in your initial statement.
Any thoughts on my proposal to read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? I think this will help us from having to address naive misunderstandings.
"If you take umbrage with [the unifying theory of biology], know that you are among a very small minority. Being in the minority doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it is probably worthwhile to reinvestigate the supporting evidence if you find yourself in a lonely place."
-Quote from Randy with change in brackets.
Skyhook,
I don't believe I ever took umbrage with evolutionary theory.
Using the second definition of umbrage given by dictionary.com: the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt, hostility, or the like, you most certainly have taken umbrage with evolutionary theory. You can be in denial all you want, but the objective reader knows what you have said. In case the objective reader has forgot, here is a small reminder.
Once again (again), I know that you say you have not spoken against evolution by natural selection, but this is simply not the case. This discrepancy may be due to your naïve understanding of the theory as demonstrated in week 9. You give an indication, a feeling of suspicion, when you say “I… [am arguing] against the development of morality through naturalistic processes (i.e. evolution).”
You have explicitly stated that “macro”evolution would be evidence against God. I would like to note that the prefix in quotes is entirely unnecessary as the only difference found between “macro” and “micro” evolution is that of time and not something to do with the theory of natural selection. It is the same process.
You have also stuck your neck out against evolution by natural selection when you post passages from the Bible that describe the fantastic events of a global flood and major extinction event (the biggest one ever– even though there is no record of it!), occurring somewhere within the last ~10,000 – 50,000 years. Not only do you post such passages, but you also state that the impossibility of such an event is sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Bible as a whole.
Post a Comment