Skeptics and Another Natural Explanation for the Resurrection Narratives

Christians claim that until skeptics can agree on an alternative natural explanation to the resurrection accounts told in the Gospels that the Gospels should be accepted as the truth. They further claim that by offering other natural explanations to these accounts it shows that skeptics are merely grasping at straws to reject the claims of the gospel. But these accusations are Balderdash! They're not even close...not even in the ballpark...not even on the radar.

Every single one of our natural explanations requires denying something in one or more of the gospel narratives, yes. But no one can take these narratives as straightforward history either. Can we really believe Pilate was afraid of a Jewish mob, of that he had a custom such as releasing a prisoner like Barabbas, that Joseph of Arimathea wasn't one mixed up person if he existed at all, that the saints came out of the tombs upon Jesus' death, that the sun was darkened, or that the Pharisees really thought a guard needed to be at his tomb? Can we really believe women went to his tomb on Sunday morning thinking someone would roll back the stone, or that the different accounts of all of these stories can be harmonized? All of these problems, plus many more, must be looked at even before we get to the extraordinary miraculous claim that a body with total cell necrosis came back from the dead. So it is nearly impossible to take the Gospels at face value. Now what?

Let's do the work of a historian and try to figure what might have really happened if anything happened at all, since we cannot take the gospels at face value. Then let's not forget that kicker, you know, the one about miracles, the one that requires a lot of evidence for it? Since this is the case why not deny it all as propaganda? Why must we accept any of it, really? With these textual problems staring us in the face it's hard to accept the miraculous option even if we grant that Yahweh exists and miracles are possible. You know, Yahweh, the Jewish tribal god? The Jews didn't see any reason to accept the claims that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah who resurrected from the grave as the son of God. What they needed, even granting the existence of Yahweh and miracles, is that Yahweh did this particular miracle in this particular case, and they overwhelmingly concluded he did not--even though they lived in that era, in that place, and among the very people making the claim. And they and knew their Scriptures too! Surely if they were Yahweh's chosen ones he would be sure to help convince the very people who were the experts in what he revealed in the OT canon. Since they couldn't believe, neither can I. So I look for natural explanations. There is nothing disingenuous or deceptive or any attempt to escape the claims of the gospel here at all. It's merely trying to come to the truth.

In any case, someone named Stuart Murray emailed me about a different natural explanation of the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. Here is what he wrote, see what you think:
I begin by assuming that Jesus's death at the hands of the Romans wasn't public knowledge. When the Romans arrested Jesus, they did so when Jesus was alone and there was no one to witness it. There are hints of this in the gospels. Jesus went to a secluded spot in the Garden of Gethsemene and none of his followers were arrested. I just assume that his capture was even more surreptitious. This would have been the best way for the Romans to do things without causing a riot. Although people would obviously have their suspicions about what had happened to Jesus they wouldn't know for sure. In other words, Jesus' disappearance would be a mystery.

There would undoubtedly have been enormous interest in and speculation about what had happened. I think that three theories would arise to explain the disappearance. The first, and correct, theory would be that Jesus had been killed by the Romans. The second would be that Jesus was still alive somewhere, perhaps in hiding. The third would be that Jesus had been taken up to heaven like Elijah. This would be an odd explanation for a disappearance to us today but I think it would make sense to his disciples. If they believed that the kingdom of heaven was about to arrive at any moment, then it would make sense for their leader to be taken up to heaven first so that he could bring the kingdom to earth in person.

It's interesting to consider what happens when there are highly publicised disappearances. You can virtually guarantee that there will be sightings of the misssing person. Think of the case of Madeleine McCann, the British girl who disappeared in Portugal. There was huge interest in the case and there were literally hundreds of alleged sightings of her all over the world. There were people who were absolutely convinced that they had seen her. If she had simply been found murdered this wouldn't have happened. I think something similar happened with Jesus. The mystery over his disappearance and the interest in his case would ensure that there would be lots of sightings of him. These would of course be sightings of a flesh and blood man, not a ghost.

Initially the three theories I've mentioned would be seen as incompatible, and the proponents of the theories would argue with each other. After a while, however, someone would realise that the theories could actually be combined. People would eventually accept that Jesus had been killed and that those who thought he must still be alive because he'd been seen by so many people were wrong. However, the sightings of Jesus wouldn't simply have to be dismissed, instead, they could be reinterpreted as sightings of a risen Jesus! So what would emerge was the belief that Jesus had died, that he had appeared after his death, and then he'd been taken up to heaven.

Once the sightings were interpreted as sightings of a risen Jesus, people would be falling over themselves to claim that they were amongst those who had seen him. Some of the disciples may have actually 'seen' him in those early stages but if they hadn't it would be easy to claim afterwards that they had. There would in any case be a natural tendency to restrict sightings to the church leaders as time passed. Paul's famous passage in 1 Corinthians 15 would be a midpoint in this trend. Appearances are attributed to the disciples but they're also attributed to 'more than 500', a claim which is later dropped.

Because no one would know what happened to Jesus's body it's easy to see how the legend of the empty tomb could develop later. My theory also explains how the so-called appearances of Jesus were appearances of a flesh and blood man and not a ghost.

165 comments:

LadyAtheist said...

Makes sense to me. I have long thought that the closest parallel to the Jesus sightings were the sightings of Elvis. Even though his body had been on display, his fans didn't want to believe he was dead. I think even if the whole drama at the cross were true his fans wouldn't have accepted his death.

shane said...

Very good point John!

I would like to add to it by saying that I have heard alot of christians say that Jesus must have risen, and the disciples must have had encounters with Him after His resurrection because how else do we explain the fact that the disiples carried out the message under persecution and later martyrdom?....Why would the disiples die for it unless they really saw and knew Jesus had risen?

My answer to them has always been the same - that many christians all through history have carried on through persecution and martydom, and none of them ever met Jesus during His life or witnessed Him after His resurrection!
Those people believed without seeing or knowing anything and died for their belief.........so how hard is it to believe that the disciples never really experienced the bigger part of what the gospels claim, and yet still totally believed the false claims of His resurrection? Or in any case, believed they had experienced something?

Papalinton said...

Yes, a reasonable alternative perspective to consider. For me, however, there simply isn't enough cogent evidence to even suggest there was indeed a jesus. The 'hero saviour warrior' archetype of the time was fulfilled through any number of identified people both real and imaginary. Jesus to me is the christian compilation, an amalgam of a number of prophesying shamanic itinerants, both figurative and literal, of that time in history. Interestingly, most of the legendary aspects of the jesus we come to know today are a product of active imaginations from the 2ndC - 5thC CE, a time full of creative church fathers who were able to fashion a jesus to their liking, while at the same time fending off the heresies like Marcionism, or Gnosticism, which they were able to expunge with impunity after Constantine made christianity the official state religion with all the coercive power and might that such status entails.

Cheers

Anonymous said...

One problem I see with this is the public proclamation of the resurrection at Pentecost. If Jesus had just been quietly disappeared by the Romans, why wait a period of time that would render a body unidentifiable to make their big announcement to the authorities?

I used to see the necessity in trying to come up with alternative, natural scenario, but the truth is, by doing that, we are giving more credit to the gospels as historical documents then they deserve.

Adrian said...

I initially wrote a very negative, sneering response (I know, surprise right?). I personally think that it was an obvious work of fiction missing only the magic so couldn't be helpful. These sort of accounts read like an unholy marriage between Star Trek fan fiction and the more earnest attempts of conspiracy theorists to make their bizarre ideas seems superficially plausible. I think there is so much obvious fiction in these accounts that before asking "what is true?" we need to ask "is any of this true?"

However, based on the reactions in some other comments I revised it. I'm surprised to hear so much positivity, making me think I've totally missed the point.

To those people who think this was good, laudable or clever:
* who do you think the audience is?
* what was the point of this story?

Unknown said...

One problem with this explanation is of course the main idol of Christianity - the cross.

Crucifixions in antiquity were designed to be public spectacles. It defeats the purpose to crucify someone in private. Of course, the crucifixion also doesn't make sense of the normative Christian story either, since crucifixions were designed for insurrectionists - especially insurrectionists who were a threat to the empire. A criminal like "son of the father" Barabbas or rebel like Jesus' disciple Simon the Zealot (according to Josephus) would rightly deserve crucifixion. But a peace-loving, itinerant preacher who told his followers to "render to Caesar" with no weapons would not be crucified.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Tyro

I had the same reaction, actually. The resurrected redeemer is such a classic archetype (even before Jesus) that the whole story just reeks of swords and sorcery epic with a healthy dollop of moralizing thrown in for good measure. I have never understood why WE are required to come up with a naturalistic explanation for something that is so self-evidently historical fiction, let alone why we need to AGREE or come up with a SINGLE potential explanation.

As always, the standard of proof and logical line of inquiry that they would apply to people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, seen Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns, or other fanciful encounters simply doesn't apply to this story.

That said, ASSUMING Jesus was a single real historical person and not an amalgam of multiple persons, this is actually a pretty good explanation. Given the fact that most of this was written down hundreds of years after the fact, the authors were free to take creative dramatic liberties with some of the details as long as the myth of the ressurected redeemer hero remains at the center.

Steven Carr said...

Asking atheists to account for an empty tomb is like asking people to account for the second gun that was allegedly used to shot JFK.

At least there really was a grassy knoll….

But wait a minute Steven, hold on, not so fast.

You’re saying Christians are no better than conspiracy theorists.

That’s absurd, Steven. You’re way out of order. You have no idea how conspiracy theories work. Get real.

If Christianity was a conspiracy theory like the second gunman who shot JFK, Christians would start telling stories about how the authorities tried to cover up the truth by concocting a story in a secret meeting that the Christians found out about.

Get real, Steven. Conspiracy theory…?

Come on, Steven. This is fantasy.

Where are the reports of a secret cover up? Where are the stories of a secret meeting where the authorities covered up the truth?

I thought Christianity was supposed to be no better than the theories that the Bush administration planned 9/11.

Where are the government meetings and coverup?

Matthew 28
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.

When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed

Anonymous said...

I remember running to the Christian book store in anticipation to buy the next apologetic book. Every time, I just could not wait to get more evidence to use against non Christians.

Finally I discovered that all the arguments for the resurrection are the same drivel. It is the best they have, lol

Corky said...

Do you know what else is hilarious about that resurrection conspiracy theory, Stephen?

That the "chief priests" would believe a resurrection story told to them by the soldiers.

There is no way that the chief priests would have believed a story like that - much less give the soldiers a large sum of money.

Why should the priests pay a bribe? It would have been a sure thing that the soldiers weren't going to tell anyone that they had failed in their duty.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Corky

As I recall didn't you get executed in the Roman Army if you fell asleep on duty?

Unknown said...

Hello Folks from Robert Bumbalough. I hope all are well and feeling fine.

Papalinton: Hello Sir. The case for Constantine the Great having made Christianity the official religion of the Empire is weak. A better candidate is Constantius II who ruled from 337 to 361.

An interesting history of Christianity was provided by Charles B. Waite. His book is History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred. Waite's conclusion on p.433 says “…no evidence is found, of the existence in the first century, of either of the following doctrines; the immaculate conception – the miracles of Christ – his material resurrection. No one of these doctrines is to be found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able to find them in any other writings of the first century.

As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they were not written in the first century, we have but recorded the convictions of the more advanced scholars of the present day, irrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom, the question as now presented is, how early in the second century were they composed?

Discarding, as inventions of the second century, having no historical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the Christian Religion?”

Christianity is based on fantasy, so I think skeptics should hold the apologist to task and require them to establish historical veracity of their texts prior to debating whether the events portrayed are reasonable. I think John is too generous to the Christians regarding their delusions.

nazani said...

I'm with Papalinton on this - I feel like the gospel Jesus is an amalgam of real dissidents, itinerant prophets, and mythological figures.

When I was in college, my English prof had us write our own epic about the Old West- 5 heroes, 5 villains, and 5 action scenarios. We had Jesse James as a hero, Hopalong Cassidy as a real person, and made up Indian names (one animal + one color = Indian name.)

What doesn't make sense to me is that if a real Jesus was snatched, his main followers weren't also eliminated. Peter and the 4 evangelists could have been just opportunists who capitalized on anti-Roman sentiment - from a safe distance.

Papalinton said...

@ Robert Bumbalough

Hi Robert
Your note on Constantius is right. He did indeed institutionalise christianity as the state religion. And in relation to Constantine, it was more perhaps his mother, Helena, who was the primary driving force in setting that process in motion. None-the-less, it was in the 4thC CE, some three hundred plus years after the hero had purportedly lived and those events had purportedly occurred, that the story moved into full swing.

What is truly so very incredulous is that the town of Nazareth only became a place of pilgrimage after her [Helena's] whistle-stop tour during the 4thC. If Nazareth was so central to the jesus story, how is it that nobody, not even the early church fathers, knew of its geographical position or sought to visit this hallowed place? Even Origen of Alexandria, who lived in Caesaria for so many years, less than thirty miles away, knew not of Nazareth's existence. Of course, despite christian Apologetics, we now know that Nazareth only came into existence after the First Jewish War [66-70CE]

Cheers

Unknown said...

I’ve had arguments like this before. It’s always the same – and I have a response that I use ALL THE TIME now.

My response – “it’s all made up – none of it it’s true – it’s fiction”

Jayman said...

Stuart Murray:

I begin by assuming that Jesus's death at the hands of the Romans wasn't public knowledge.

This assumption is false since crucifixions were public events. Note also that Murray's methodology is suspect. He takes the Gospels to be at least somewhat reliable in describing Jesus' arrest but to be unreliable when describing Jesus' execution as public. If the Gospels are somewhat accurate in describing a rather private event like Jesus' arrest then shouldn't we assume they would be more accurate in describing a public event like Jesus' execution? There were certainly more witnesses to the crucifixion than the arrest.

When the Romans arrested Jesus, they did so when Jesus was alone and there was no one to witness it.

The arresting party itself is witness to the event. Moreover, Jesus' followers were with him and Peter and the beloved disciple even followed him at a distance after his arrest. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that no follower of Jesus witnessed his arrest. Even then they would have known of his public execution.

There are hints of this in the gospels. Jesus went to a secluded spot in the Garden of Gethsemene and none of his followers were arrested. I just assume that his capture was even more surreptitious.

What method allows Murray to pick and choose which parts of the Gospels are history and which are not? For example, why does he consider the Gospels accurate when describing Jesus' place of arrest but inaccurate when stating he was accompanied by followers? It is also strange that he thinks the evangelists accurately described where Jesus prayed when no one witnessed the prayer and Jesus "disappeared" and therefore could not tell them at a later date where he was when he was arrested. One might be tempted to argue that if the evangelists could know what Jesus was doing without witnessing it they were inspired.

Although people would obviously have their suspicions about what had happened to Jesus they wouldn't know for sure. In other words, Jesus' disappearance would be a mystery.

Even if we assume that Jesus' arrest was witnessed by no one (which is absurd since the arresting party itself would have to witness the arrest), his whereabouts would have been a mystery for a few hours. Of course Murray ignores the fact that at least Peter and the beloved disciple knew where Jesus was the whole time.

The first, and correct, theory would be that Jesus had been killed by the Romans.

All our earliest sources subscribe to this "theory". It's almost like they knew what happened.

The second would be that Jesus was still alive somewhere, perhaps in hiding. The third would be that Jesus had been taken up to heaven like Elijah.

These "theories" are not mentioned in our earliest sources.

Initially the three theories I've mentioned would be seen as incompatible, and the proponents of the theories would argue with each other.

Why is there no trace of these arguments in our earliest sources?

Appearances are attributed to the disciples but they're also attributed to 'more than 500', a claim which is later dropped.

An appearance not being mentioned is not the same as an appearance being denied. Murray provides no evidence for an evolution of three theories into the traditional resurrection account.

Because no one would know what happened to Jesus's body it's easy to see how the legend of the empty tomb could develop later.

There's no reason to assume that the location of Jesus' tomb was unknown. It's strange that the "legend" of the empty tomb was even believed by Jews in Matthew's time and location.

My theory also explains how the so-called appearances of Jesus were appearances of a flesh and blood man and not a ghost.

I admit that is an interesting component. Unfortunately almost everything else is implausible.

Curt said...

I hear apologist say that if you don't have a solid working naturalistic hypothesis for the resurrection story which takes all of the "facts" into account, then the only reasonable explanation is the supernatural. (Tim Keller is one who uses this argument).

But, this completely misses the point. Additional naturalistic explanations aren't a sign of weakness, but rather strength. If you take all of the possible natural possibilities they end up crowding out the supernatural. Any one natural explanation is probably wrong in some or all details, but taken together the probability that one of them is correct is vastly greater that the probability the apologist's version is correct. In weighing the odds, the correct comparison is not the supernatural vs. any one natural explanation, but rather the supernatural vs. all possible natural explanations.

Jayman said...

shane, later Christians did not undergo persecution and martyrdom for something they knew to be false. They underwent persecution and martyrdom for something they believed to be true. If the apostles made up the story then they would be dying for something they knew to be false. It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred. Perhaps they were mistaken, but it is hard to believe they would make up the resurrection out of whole cloth and then undergo persecution and martyrdom for what they knew to be a lie.

J. Quinton, Jesus' large following and cleansing of the Temple made him appear a potential threat to the Romans.

Jeffrey A. Myers, every historical claim (e.g., the Gospels are historical fiction, the resurrection account is pure fiction) must be argued for. If you don't want to make arguments then don't make historical claims. No one is forcing you to deny the historical accuracy of the Gospels. You can be entirely undecided.

Papalinton, there is archaeological evidence for the existence of Nazareth from the time of Jesus (in fact some was recently unearthed near the Church of the Annunciation). The city was very small and so would probably be unknown to those who weren't locals. Nazareth was the town where Jesus grew up and is not particularly prominent in the Gospels. If Mark was written before the First Jewish War then clearly Nazareth was already in existence.

Anonymous said...

Jayman; we don't actually know that the first Christians died because they believed in the resurrection.

Jayman said...

Ryan Anderson, I'm not sure how you take my statement or in what sense you are objecting to it. I mean that the apostles continued following Jesus after his death because they believed he had been raised from the dead. Their preaching, which included preaching about Christ's resurrection, led to their persecution and/or death.

Papalinton said...

@ Jayman
"If Mark was written before the First Jewish War then clearly Nazareth was already in existence."

An interesting but speculative point. The balance is inexorably shifting to Mark being written in the 2ndC CE; precisely when is still a matter of conjecture. The lastest discovery of a 'jesus era house' [note the Apologetical phrasing] at the end of 2009 is a red herring. Even that building is now firming to be a 2ndC construct [and most certainly after the 66-70CE]
The latest scholarship puts the dates at:

Matthew: 37-100CE
Mark: 40-73CE
Luke: 50-100CE
John: 65-100CE

The earliest of the dates are those of conservative, believing Apologist scholars, while the later dates are held by liberal and some secular scholars. As further evidence comes to light and more sophisticated higher criticism techniques are employed even the later dates are moving into the 2ndC. Such an indicative example of a later dating for the gospels, is the Lukan reference to Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch (c 168-188CE). The indicators for a much later dating are just too numerous to ignore.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred.

CARR
This is from the guy who cannot produce one named person who ever wrote a document saying he had ever seen anybody called Thomas.

There is no evidence that these 'apostles' existed, apart from Peter and John, who Paul mentions.

And Paul is adamant in Galatians 6:12 that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.

In fact in Galatians 5, Paul uses the fact that he is persecuted to prove that he has not compromised on the isse of circumcision.

The idea that anybody would be persecuted over the issue of resurrection never entered Paul's head.

Persecution meant persecution over circumcision.

But perhaps Jayman could name one person who wrote a document naming himself as saying he had ever seen Thomans.

And by the way the absurd idea that Christians could escape persecution by saying they were fraudsters is as utterly laughable as Jayman claiming Madoff must have been genuine because all he had to do to escape jail was claim he had been defrauding people.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
I mean that the apostles continued following Jesus after his death because they believed he had been raised from the dead.

CARR
Even the anonymous author of Matthew knew enough to denounce some of those people in Matthew 28:17 as 'doubters'.

Why had people never heard of these alleged 'apostles'?

Matthew gets his spin in first.

They were doubters who never relly believed, just like Loftus was a doubter who never really believed.

2000 years later Christians still use the same tactic.

stuartm said...

Jayman

I didn't say I accepted the story of the arrest in the garden of Gethsemane, I said that the story was a hint of what might really have happened. It's interesting that none of Jesus's followers were arrested, it's likely that they would have been if they were with him.

Of course if you accept the reliability of the gospels you will reject my theory. The point I would like to make is that apologists argue that no scenario whatsoever could explain the appearances or the resurrection, no matter what natural assumptions are allowed. They argue that no one could have imagined seeing Jesus because the conditions were wrong. Well, what if the conditions were right? What if they saw him because they thought he might still be alive?

You say that this is impossible. Think about that. Is it really impossible to imagine any scenario whatsoever in which Jesus could be killed without people in general knowing? That is impossible but it is possible for a corpse to come back to life, walk around for a while and then float off into the sky.

shane said...

Jayman.

Im not saying the disciples knew the claims were false, Im saying that they may never have really witnessed Jesus after His death. Instead they may have simply heard claims that were false and believed them.
Or maybe Jesus never really died and therefore was able to appear to them later on?....Or maybe the stories are pure fabrication?
Eitherway, I was giving an example that people can believe without any real evidence so deeply that they will die for it....so its not to hard to believe the disciples carried on without really knowing that Jesus rose!

shane said...

The very fact that all four of the resurrection narratives are directly inconsistent is evidence of two things - 1: Either one is correct and the other three are false. Or - 2: None are correct. Im leaning toward none are correct.

Their direct inconsistency lends evidence to the resurrection being something uncertain and clouded among the gospel authors and therefore must be fabrication for the most part.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Hello Jayman and Friends: I hope this message finds all well and in cheerful mind. I crafted a rather too long reply that was too long for the blog comments, so I posted it as an entry on my silly blog.

The point Of my post was to attempt to show that it is Bayesian Rational to believe that the Gospel accounts are not historically reliable by means of making an argument from the Coherencey Theory of truth and to a Best Explanation. No doubt I have failed in this endeavor. I would be much obliged if the reader would take a few moments to review my argument and point out its flaws. I wanted to post it here, but Blogger.com would not let me due to its excessive length of 913 words and 5700 or so characters. Many Thanks and best wishes.

Best wishes and Regards

stuartm said...

The bottom line is this. The belief in the resurrection is inseparable from the belief that Jesus was seen after his death. If a natural scenario can be constructed in which a large number of people see Jesus after his death then the resurrection is finished. The resurrection can only survive if such a scenario can be shown to be impossible in principle. It is not enough to show that it is unlikely, even very unlikely in practice.

I believe that I have constructed just such a scenario. It depends on one assumption: that when Jesus died people were unsure about what had happened to him. Let's suppose that the chances of this happening are one in a thousand (can anyone honestly say that they are even as low as that?). This would still be infinitely greater than the chances of a corpse coming to life.

It would be absurd to say that it is necessary to do even more than show how people could have seen Jesus after his death. That's all that needs to be done to make the resurrection sink.

Unknown said...

Hello stuartm

I hope you are well and feeling good. Sir your point is very similar to that made by David Hume in “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature… There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation…
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), ‘That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish….’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”


David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, p. 114-16

GearHedEd said...

Here's another thing everybody seems to keep on ignoring:

There were 500 witnesses of the 'risen Jesus'...

How did this crowd of 500 nameless people (if they even existed) know that the hippie in the white robe over there was really Jesus?

Remember that there were no printing presses, no photography, no television...

The ONLY people who would KNOW what Jesus looked like would have been close associates, not an amorphous blob of convenient humanity that just happened to be passing by.

Even when our hero was suffering on the cross, the only ones who would have known it was really him were his close associates, friends and family; and they might have easily duped the Roman soldiers by fingering SOMEONE ELSE at the Garden of Gethsemane. One bleeding hippie nailed to a stick looks a lot like any other bleeding hippie (on a stick).

Would the Apostles have jumped at a chance to save the life of their Lord? You betcha they would.

Then, the empty tomb is really empty, because no one was placed IN it in the first place, Jesus is seen alive and well after the alleged execution, and the Apostles are stuck living the lie.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Gearhead

I've wondered a lot about that too. Especially after you've beaten the living tar out of someone, it's going to be really hard to identify them, especially without photographs.

It would have been INCREDIBLY easy for some bearded charlatan to simply stand up and say 'I'm Spartacus!' Wait... wrong historical fiction.

GearHedEd said...

...And before you say, "what about the scene with Pilate..." or "what about the interrogation by the Pharisees..."

Two things:

1. Were the authors of the "historical" gospels peeking through the windows, taking notes on the proceedings so they could accurately report them? and

2. If not, then all the extra bits of the narrative where the apostles could not have been present and privy to the action ARE fabrication.

Jeffrey A. Myers said...

@ Gearhead

Hello! Omniscient Third Person narrative. Literally!

GearHedEd said...

High five, Jeff!

GearHedEd said...

That was too easy.

B.R. said...

And don't forget the zombie outbreak that occurred at Jesus' death. Hey... do y'all think I could get Jesus to show up at a Halloween party? A zombie deity who can create hordes with a wave of His hand... man, this party's gonna be dope!!

Unknown said...

Hello GearHedEd I hope you're well and feeling good.

Your point "One bleeding hippie nailed to a stick looks a lot like any other bleeding hippie (on a stick)." is essentially what Islam uses to rebut allegations of the Resurrection by referring to

Mar 15:21 They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross.

Islam says it was Simon that was crucified and that Jesus slipped away in order to show up later as the Resurrected Christ and that the disciples hid Simon's corpse while the tomb was unguarded.

GearHedEd said...

@ Robert B.,

I did not know that... although what I said earlier is also a possibility, it's not the SAME point for the switcheroo.

Excellent...

GearHedEd said...

"Islam says it was Simon that was crucified and that Jesus slipped away in order to show up later as the Resurrected Christ and that the disciples hid Simon's corpse while the tomb was unguarded."

That would also account for the "resurrected" Jesus to have some evidence of having been flogged, where mine wouldn't.

Jayman said...

stuartm, the main problem I have with your hypothesis is that you don't root it in the earliest sources and your methodology is unclear. It looks like you came up with a theory and mined the Gospels for a few snippets to give it the air of plausibility. Whatever you think of the resurrection hypothesis, it is at least rooted in the earliest sources and explains the history of early Christianity.

shane, the issue of what to make of the differences between the resurrection accounts in the Gospels is more complex than you let on. First, if there are differences then you can't assert the four evangelists were in collusion constructing a fictional account. The differences imply a degree of independence. Based on the criterion of multiple attestation, having four independent accounts of the resurrection (there are actually more if we look outside the Gospels) makes it more likely (than it otherwise would be) that those points where the Gospels do agree are historically accurate. Second, not all differences are contradictions. Third, differences on minor points do not significantly effect the historicity of major points (e.g., the empty tomb, that Jesus appeared to his disciples).

Robert Bumbalough, if you want to persuade a Christian of your position you have to start on some common ground. I found myself disagreeing with your starting premises at nearly every turn. First, I don't hold to the coherence theory of truth (coherence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for truth). Second, a Bayesian argument for the resurrection can be found in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (the paper, by McGrew and McGrew, may be available online in a "rough draft" format). Third, the hypothesis that Jesus was not an historical person has virtually no adherents among scholars. Fourth, I don't agree with the assertion that all religions are based on fictional stories, if by that you mean religious founders always make things up out of whole clothe (yes, this goes for religions other than Judaism and Christianity). Fifth, the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. Sixth, even an atheist/agnostic like Earman can label Hume's argument against miracles an "abject failure" (he provides plenty of Bayesian analysis to show why).

GearHedEd, your arguments are nullified by John the Elder (to take one example). Papias knew John the Elder personally and attests that he wrote the Gospel of John. Within the Gospel of John this beloved disciple (not someone who barely knew Jesus) claims to have witnessed Jesus' arrest, trial, execution, and resurrection.

GearHedEd said...

From the wiki on Papias:

"Papias also related a number of traditions that Eusebius had characterized as "some strange parables and teachings of the savior, and some other more mythical accounts."[5][6] For example, Eusebius indicated that Papias heard stories about Justus, surnamed Barsabas, who drank poison but suffered no harm and another story via a daughter of Philip the Evangelist concerning the resurrection of a corpse.[7]

Eusebius states that Papias "reproduces a story about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins." J. B. Lightfoot identified this story with the Pericope Adulterae, and included it in his collection of fragments of Papias' work. However, Michael W. Holmes has pointed out that it is not certain "that Papias knew the story in precisely this form, inasmuch as it now appears that at least two independent stories about Jesus and a sinful woman circulated among Christians in the first two centuries of the church, so that the traditional form found in many New Testament manuscripts may well represent a conflation of two independent shorter, earlier versions of the incident."[8]

According to a scholium attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Papias also related a tradition on the death of Judas Iscariot, in which Judas became so swollen ( Obese, fat, over weight) he could not pass where a chariot could easily and was crushed by a chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.[9]"

Yeah, Papias is trustworthy as a source...

NOT!

GearHedEd said...

There's more:

"Papias knew John the Elder personally and attests that he wrote the Gospel of John. Within the Gospel of John this beloved disciple (not someone who barely knew Jesus) claims to have witnessed Jesus' arrest, trial, execution, and resurrection."

Let's assume for now that John was the same age as Jesus.

If he was, and Papias was born,around 60CE as most scholars have it, ("No known fact is inconsistent with c. 60-135 as the period of Papias's life..."), then when Papias was in his "writing" period of ~20 years old on (if he wrote ANYTHING during that time: "Eusebius...suggests that he wrote "as early as 110 and probably no later than the early 130s".

This would mean that IF Papias was an acquaintance of John the Elder (REALLY elder: he would be ~80 when Papias was 20, and ~110 at the beginning of the time Papias was writing), it's likely he would have been either senile, or dead.

Next.

Unknown said...

Hello Jayman: I hope you are well and feeling upbeat. @Steven Carr responded to your earlier comment that:

"It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred."

The following addresses this common fallacy your comment resembles. This text was written by a reviewer,Nicholas Ryan Covington, of the new skeptic book "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?" by Kris D Komarnitsky I'm posting it because it answers your rebuttal well.

The question "Why would they die..." is not legitimate for many reasons: first, there is no solid evidence that any of the disciples were martyred for their belief in the resurrection, much less any evidence that they were given a chance to recant. As Kenneth Daniels says in his book Why I Believed:

"[T]he assertion that Jesus' disciples died for their faith has no historical foundation; it is mere hearsay, as Bart Ehrman informs us:

"'And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection (Craig and Ehrman 2006, 28-29).'

"What Erhman is saying is that we have no historical grounding for the martyrdom of even one of Jesus' disciples. All details regarding their manner of dying emerge years later in accounts that are far removed from the actual events. Even if it could be proven historically that some of the earliest disciples were martyred, we would still be unable to look into their minds and know they died specifically for their belief in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Latter Day Saints believe he was martyred for his unwavering conviction that God revealed himself through golden tablets that Smith had discovered in 1830. Many non-Mormons believe he was killed because he was a criminal. If the facts are so readily disputed for a relatively recent and well-documented event like Joseph Smith's death, how can we say with any confidence how or why Jesus' disciples perished, let alone what was in their minds when they died?" ~ Reviews Page

Your standard recourse to the tired old canard of "Why would the disciples die for a lie?" fails due to lack of evidence.

Unknown said...

Hello Jayman: I hope you are well and feeling upbeat. @Steven Carr responded to your earlier comment that:

"It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred."

The following addresses this common fallacy your comment resembles. This text was written by a reviewer,Nicholas Ryan Covington, of the new skeptic book "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?" by Kris D Komarnitsky I'm posting it because it answers your rebuttal well.

The question "Why would they die..." is not legitimate for many reasons: first, there is no solid evidence that any of the disciples were martyred for their belief in the resurrection, much less any evidence that they were given a chance to recant. As Kenneth Daniels says in his book Why I Believed:

"[T]he assertion that Jesus' disciples died for their faith has no historical foundation; it is mere hearsay, as Bart Ehrman informs us:

"'And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection (Craig and Ehrman 2006, 28-29).'

"What Erhman is saying is that we have no historical grounding for the martyrdom of even one of Jesus' disciples. All details regarding their manner of dying emerge years later in accounts that are far removed from the actual events. Even if it could be proven historically that some of the earliest disciples were martyred, we would still be unable to look into their minds and know they died specifically for their belief in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Latter Day Saints believe he was martyred for his unwavering conviction that God revealed himself through golden tablets that Smith had discovered in 1830. Many non-Mormons believe he was killed because he was a criminal. If the facts are so readily disputed for a relatively recent and well-documented event like Joseph Smith's death, how can we say with any confidence how or why Jesus' disciples perished, let alone what was in their minds when they died?" (Blogger won't accept the link.)

Your standard recourse to the tired old canard of "Why would the disciples die for a lie?" fails due to lack of evidence.

Unknown said...

Hello Jayman: I hope you are well and feeling upbeat. @Steven Carr responded to your earlier comment that:

"It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred."

The following addresses this common fallacy your comment resembles. This text was written by a reviewer,Nicholas Ryan Covington, of the new skeptic book "Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?" by Kris D Komarnitsky I'm posting it because it answers your rebuttal well.

The question "Why would they die..." is not legitimate for many reasons: first, there is no solid evidence that any of the disciples were martyred for their belief in the resurrection, much less any evidence that they were given a chance to recant. As Kenneth Daniels says in his book Why I Believed:

"[T]he assertion that Jesus' disciples died for their faith has no historical foundation; it is mere hearsay, as Bart Ehrman informs us:

"'And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection (Craig and Ehrman 2006, 28-29).'

"What Erhman is saying is that we have no historical grounding for the martyrdom of even one of Jesus' disciples. All details regarding their manner of dying emerge years later in accounts that are far removed from the actual events. Even if it could be proven historically that some of the earliest disciples were martyred, we would still be unable to look into their minds and know they died specifically for their belief in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Latter Day Saints believe he was martyred for his unwavering conviction that God revealed himself through golden tablets that Smith had discovered in 1830. Many non-Mormons believe he was killed because he was a criminal. If the facts are so readily disputed for a relatively recent and well-documented event like Joseph Smith's death, how can we say with any confidence how or why Jesus' disciples perished, let alone what was in their minds when they died?" (Blogger won't accept the link.)

Your standard recourse to the tired old canard of "Why would the disciples die for a lie?" fails due to lack of evidence.

Unknown said...

Part 1) Hello Jayman: I hope you are well and feeling upbeat. Steven Carr responded to your earlier comment that:

"It is more likely that the apostles died for something they sincerely believed occurred."

The following addresses this common fallacy your comment resembles. This text was written by a reviewer,Nicholas Ryan Covington, of the new skeptic book Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? by Kris D Komarnitsky

The question "Why would they die..." is not legitimate for many reasons: first, there is no solid evidence that any of the disciples were martyred for their belief in the resurrection, much less any evidence that they were given a chance to recant. As Kenneth Daniels says in his book Why I Believed:

"[T]he assertion that Jesus' disciples died for their faith has no historical foundation; it is mere hearsay, as Bart Ehrman informs us:

"'And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection (Craig and Ehrman 2006, 28-29).'
cont in part 2

Unknown said...

Part 2) Hello @Jayman Here is the rest of the message.

"What Erhman is saying is that we have no historical grounding for the martyrdom of even one of Jesus' disciples. All details regarding their manner of dying emerge years later in accounts that are far removed from the actual events. Even if it could be proven historically that some of the earliest disciples were martyred, we would still be unable to look into their minds and know they died specifically for their belief in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Latter Day Saints believe he was martyred for his unwavering conviction that God revealed himself through golden tablets that Smith had discovered in 1830. Many non-Mormons believe he was killed because he was a criminal. If the facts are so readily disputed for a relatively recent and well-documented event like Joseph Smith's death, how can we say with any confidence how or why Jesus' disciples perished, let alone what was in their minds when they died?" ~ Reviews Page

Your standard recourse to the tired old canard of "Why would the disciples die for a lie?" fails due to lack of evidence.

Jayman said...

I must correct my earlier statement regarding Papias and the Gospel of John. No extant fragment of Papias explicitly states that John wrote the Fourth Gospel. However, an argument can be made, independent of Papias, that John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John and Papias does claim to have listened to John the Elder. Moreover, an argument can be made that Papias did believe John the Elder wrote the Fourth Gospel but it is based on inferences and not explicit statements.

Nonetheless, my basic point stands because the Gospel of John itself asserts to be based on the testimony of the beloved disciple. Moreover, we know that Peter followed behind Jesus as he was brought before the religious leaders and that female followers of Jesus witnessed his crucifixion. The resurrected Jesus is said to have been witnessed by the Twelve, his closest disciples. There's no basis in the earliest sources for the hypothesis that people could not recognize the risen Christ.

Regarding Papias, Ed did not actually show which of his claims were historically inaccurate. Assuming naturalism is not an argument. The Wikipedia article states that Eusebius claimed Papias related some "more mythical accounts." But the footnote provides a translation that replaces "more mythical accounts" with "things of a more allegorical character." Papias' Prologue shows that he followed the best historiographical practices.

Regarding dates, it is quite possible that John was younger than Jesus. Noting that Papias wrote around 110 ignores the fact that he could write about an earlier period of time. In other words, we don't have to assume that John the Elder was still alive in 110. John does not appear to have been senile in old age because his Gospel (written in the 90s) accurately recalls locations in Jerusalem that were destroyed in AD 70 and only more recently re-discovered by archaeologists. I'm not aware of any non-canonical sources that confirm Ed's claims about John's state of mind in old age.

Jayman said...

Robert Bumbalough, I'm ignoring Steven Carr because he appears incapable of a fruitful dialogue with anyone. If you think he has a good point please re-state it in your own words.

I tried to explain what I meant about the disciples dying because of the resurrection in my earlier response to Ryan Anderson. Ehrman takes the statement in too narrow a sense. The Book of Acts shows great historical accuracy when it is compared to external sources, was written within living memory of the first Christian generation, and records multiple instances of persecution and/or martyrdom. Whether martyrs had an opportunity to recant is irrelevant since they knew what they were getting into when they started preaching. The apostle Paul testifies to his own persecution for the gospel.

GearHedEd said...

"There's no basis in the earliest sources for the hypothesis that people could not recognize the risen Christ."

Of course there's no mention of it in the gospels themselves. There's no way that anyone back then could have known that realistic imagery would someday be as common as blades of grass.

The point is that the only way anyone besides his closest associates and friends would recognize Jesus is if someone who knew what Jesus looked like pointed to a guy and said, "that's him!"

And the "risen Christ" is the mythological part, where he's all sparkly-glowy, and walks three inches above the ground...

Unknown said...

Part 1) Hello Jayman, I hope you are well and prospering. Be assured I like and respect you. We disagree, but that's OK. In this message I shall respond to your comment regarding my argument that I could not post due to excessive length. BTW, thank you for reviewing it.

J>if you want to persuade a Christian of your position you have to start on some common ground.

R> I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have no theological ax to grind. I made an argument for the fun of it.

J> I found myself disagreeing with your starting premises at nearly every turn. First, I don't hold to the coherence theory of truth (coherence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for truth).

R> There are many who disagree with you. However, you failed to mention Coherency Theories real problem of circularity. Your foundationalism is subject to infinite regress and thus cannot operate to validate a hypothesis. The solution is to blend the best attributes of coherency and foundationalism as Susan Haack argues in her book “Evidence and Inquiry.” Additionally, your assertion of necessary but not sufficient may be a back door appeal to a Transcendent Argument for God and an attack on induction. But those are not problems for the reasons Michael Martin argued and Tod Angst argued.

J> Second, a Bayesian argument for the resurrection can be found in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (the paper, by McGrew and McGrew, may be available online in a "rough draft" format).

R> My Bayesian argument works.

Unknown said...

part 2) J> Second, a Bayesian argument for the resurrection can be found in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (the paper, by McGrew and McGrew, may be available online in a "rough draft" format).

R> My Bayesian argument works.

J> Third, the hypothesis that Jesus was not an historical person has virtually no adherents among scholars.

R> Jesus Mythicism is an honorable position. The fact that there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT Gospels is adequate reason to hold that he probably did not actually exist. My Bayesian argument established that. However, we already know we disagree. The question is can either you or I make arguments for our respective positions that do not beg the question or depend upon appeal to authority. Protesting that those with whom you agree agree with you has no power to convince when those with whom you agree are religious ax grinders with an apologetic agenda.

J> Fourth, I don't agree with the assertion that all religions are based on fictional stories, if by that you mean religious founders always make things up out of whole clothe (yes, this goes for religions other than Judaism and Christianity).

R> Sir, now that's just simply gross question begging foundationalism. The facts of reality contradict your bald assertions here. A Bayesian argument can be constructed that shows your statement irrational. Use your reasoning ability and keep your faith in the drawer till Sunday morning.

Unknown said...

Part 3) J> Fifth, the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies.

R> Your over stating your case here. Higher criticism's structured approach identifies the Gospels a pseudepigraphical hagiographies rather than biographies. Again your appealing to unnamed authority and begging the question.

J> Sixth, even an atheist/agnostic like Earman can label Hume's argument against miracles an "abject failure" (he provides plenty of Bayesian analysis to show why).

R> Really. So Erhman is a super-naturalist? Could you provide a link or the name of his paper where is shows Hume's argument faulty? Since you reject coherency and thereby parsimony and Ockham's razor, it would be interesting if Erhman's attack on Hume depended upon any of those method criteria.

Ok, done now. Good night and sweet dreams. We'll have more fun tomorrow perhaps.

GearHedEd said...

I wasn't making claims; I was exploring possibilities.

And as far as I'm concerned, possibilities that don't rely on magic are always to be preferred over those that do.

GearHedEd said...

Note that MOST of the scholarly scribblings that have been printed through the last 2000 years are almost all written by men WHO WANT THE STORY TO BE TRUE.

Breckmin said...

John,
Why do you think that you "used to" believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Steven Carr said...

Jayman cannot answer my arguments so he is claiming he is ignoring me.

Does he think this is going to work?

Does he think people will not notice his inability to answer my arguments?



Jayman is now claiming that because Christians changed their story, the resurrection accounts are true.

'Mark' wrote that the followers of Jesus were planning to access the body and they only needed somebody to move the stone.

As soon as that story appeared, Christians must have realised that this story left them open to charges of grave-robbing.

So 'Matthew'changed it. The followers weren't planning to access the body. Anyway it was guarded.

And because Christians changed their story, Jayman claims it is true!

Because the first story had so many holes in it you could drive a greyhound bus through it, and even Christians realised they could not sell that and needed to change it, Jayman claims it is true.

No wonder Jayman has to ignore people who point out that stories are not true *if they have to be changed because they are absurd*

A story does not become magically true if people had to change it necause they were getting hammered in debates.

And, of course, there was no empty tomb.


If there had been ,Mark would have been forced to deal with the charges of grave-robbing that would have happened, and which did happen once his story of an empty tomb became widespread.

And how is Jayman getting on with finding evidence that Thomas existed?

Has he got a book where an unknown person scribbled in the back that 'This is all true'?

Yes he has.

He has got an anonymous document, and some anonymous people scribbled in the last chapter 'This is all true, honest injun'.

And because it is in the New Testament , Jayman believes it.

Can you imagine Jayman's laughter if a Muslim told him that the Koran must be true because an unknown Muslim had scribbled in the last chapter 'This is all true.?


And yet Jayman tries to sell it to people who actually have brains.

No wonder he has to ignore the responses he gets.

If you are selling garbage, you can't keep selling it once people have pointed out that you are selling garbage.

You have to try to find new suckers you can sell it to.

Steven Carr said...

And how is Jayman getting on with explaining how Jesus flew into the sky on his way to Heaven?

Is this a silly story or what?

It is not silly if you lived 2000 years ago and sincerely believed Heaven was above the sky.

So you could make up stories of people flying into the sky and sell them to suckers.

Anonymous said...

Jayman; "I tried to explain what I meant about the disciples dying because of the resurrection in my earlier response to Ryan Anderson."

Jayman; given Pliny's letter to Trajan, you can't say with certainity that the disciples weren't simply killed for association with Jesus, we don't know Rome's official policy (and neither did some Roman governors, apparently). Your line of argument hinges on them being given the chance to recant to save their lives and we don't really have any good evidence (either way) that they would have been given that chance.

Nero used Christian corpses as street lamps. What makes you certain he would have extended someone like Peter the chance to save himself?

Unknown said...

Hello friends and readers: I hope everybody is feeling good. Its Friday and a good day to have some fun and eat good too.

OT: To start there is a very disturbing development in the continuing saga of QE2. If you have money, move it into an inflation proof asset now.

On the thread's topic I take note of Earl Doherty's new comment on the Yahoo JesusMysteries group where he typed

**One can analyze the Pauline letters to death in an attempt to make them an
ecclesiastical or Marcionite product, but that void on any knowledge of the
Gospel story, any dimension for its Christ Jesus on earth (and there are
many elements in the Paulines which directly exclude such a thing), trumps
everything.**


As I argued in my Bayesian calculation the prior probability of Gospel historicity is very small and that of the silence of 1st century chroniclers of then current events is very large so that the conditional probability of silence given historicity would be small. The calculation then indicates the conditional probability of historicity given the silence of non-Christian sources is small. It is irrational then to believe Jesus of Nazareth was the guy in the Gospels or that he was a divine being. My argument is supported by Doherty's decade long study showing the Pauline corpus' silence on matters of an earthly Jesus.

Best Wishes To All.

Unknown said...

Hello @GearHedEd Sir I saw your comment about Papias and it reminded me that I had crafted an essay on that guy two years ago. I found it an posted it to my blog It may be of interest to you being as it is quote heavy. Best Wishes.

johnthomas didymus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
johnthomas didymus said...

The new book "Confessions of God" provides a comprehensive natural explanation already being acknowledged by biblical history scholars as historically valid natural explanation of the resurrection. It explores the relevance to the resurrection hoax of the widely unappreciated but relevant aspects of political rivalry in the Jewish Sanhedrin between the right-wing Pharisees and ultra-conservative Sadducees. (http://www.resurrectionconspiracy.com/)

Jayman said...

Robert Bumbalough:

The fact that there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth as described in the NT Gospels is adequate reason to hold that he probably did not actually exist.

Ignoring/denying the amount of evidence for Jesus' existence is not a good reason to believe he probably did not exist. There are more written sources about Jesus that were written within 100 years of his ministry than there are of Tiberius Caesar from within 100 years of his death. Do you also believe Tiberius Caesar did not exist? IF we applied mythicist methodology consistently we could deny the existence of nearly anyone who has ever lived.

The question is can either you or I make arguments for our respective positions that do not beg the question or depend upon appeal to authority.

And my basic methodology when it comes to history is to work with the earliest sources and apply normal historical methodology. Contained within my previous comments are appeals to archaeology, multiple attestation, literary genre, etc.

Sir, now that's just simply gross question begging foundationalism.

I'm not defending foundationalism nor did I rely on it in the statement you quoted. Whereas you may deny the existence of Jesus I don't go around denying the existence of Muhammad (for example). I find any theory that resorts to merely dismissing all evidence against it (e.g., the New Testament in your case) to be nearly worthless.

Again your appealing to unnamed authority and begging the question.

Read the book by Richard Burridge on the subject. I'm not going to post book-length comments.

So Erhman is a super-naturalist?

I referred to John Earman not Bart Ehrman. One can be a naturalist and still believe Hume's argument against miracles is a failure.

Could you provide a link or the name of his paper where is shows Hume's argument faulty?

The name of the book is Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles.

it would be interesting if Erhman's attack on Hume depended upon any of those method criteria.

It relies on Bayes' Theorem so it should be right up your alley. As long the a priori probability of a miracle is not zero there is always the possibility that some evidence will make the a posteriori probability greater than 0.5.

Jayman said...

Ryan Anderson:

given Pliny's letter to Trajan, you can't say with certainity that the disciples weren't simply killed for association with Jesus, we don't know Rome's official policy (and neither did some Roman governors, apparently).

Pliny's letter is from the second century and so has little bearing on the persecution of the apostles. You simply ignore the numerous NT references to persecution and martyrdom. Our historical positions must be based on all the evidence, not select letters.

Your line of argument hinges on them being given the chance to recant to save their lives and we don't really have any good evidence (either way) that they would have been given that chance.

My line of argument depends on the apostles knowing that preaching the gospel could get them in trouble. The possibility of danger did not dawn on them at the moment they were executed.

Anonymous said...

Jayman; the only two apostles that the new testament makes reference to being martyred are Stephen and James.

Stephen wasn't preaching the gospel so much as recapping the story of Abraham and Moses as insultingly as he possibly could while accusing the Sanhedrin of murdering Jesus. Seems Stephen was angry about the death of his friend and leader and there's no indication that he wouldn't have made the exact same confrontational and suicidal speech whether he believed in a risen christ or not.

And of course there's no indication that Harrod gave James a chance to live if he recanted. In fact, it simply says he was seized because he belonged to the church.

If I missed someone, let me know.

Jayman said...

Ryan Anderson:

the only two apostles that the new testament makes reference to being martyred are Stephen and James.

I referred to persecution and martyrdom, not just martyrdom.

Stephen wasn't preaching the gospel so much as recapping the story of Abraham and Moses as insultingly as he possibly could while accusing the Sanhedrin of murdering Jesus. Seems Stephen was angry about the death of his friend and leader and there's no indication that he wouldn't have made the exact same confrontational and suicidal speech whether he believed in a risen christ or not.

Stephen was seized on the grounds of being a blasphemer. He would not have made the speech unless the Sanhedrin had accused him of blasphemy. Note that he is accused of preaching about Jesus (Acts 6:14). The point of Stephen's speech is that the Jews of his day were ignoring God in the same way that previous Israelites had ignored God. The speech only makes sense if the Jews were rejecting Stephen's message about Jesus, the gospel. Far from being angry, Stephen even prays for his attackers as he is being killed (Acts 7:60).

And of course there's no indication that Harrod gave James a chance to live if he recanted. In fact, it simply says he was seized because he belonged to the church.

As I've said twice now, my point stands regardless of whether someone could recant or not. James continued to remain a Christian despite knowing that he could be persecuted or killed like those Christians before him.

Unknown said...

@Papalinton @Jayman

Regarding the dating of Acts Luke discussed in msg posted at October 27, 2010 11:23 PM

Quoting Doherty from the Jesus Puzzle on dating Acts

In pondering the date of Acts, scholars must face the fact that no clear evidence of its surfaces before 175, in Irenaeus (Against Heresies, bk.,III ch.121-15). Justin in his Apology and Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, never once refers to it , nor does anyone before him. (See the extensive discussion of the witness to Acts in Ernst Haenchen's The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, p.3f.) Several Scholars lean toward a date well into the she second century. John Knox's mid-second century date is seconded by J.T. Townsend (“The Date of Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke Acts, p.47f). Others place it a little before Marcion: J.C. O'Neill at 115-130 (The Theology of Acts, p.210, Burton Mack around 120 (Who Wrote the New Testament? p.167).

But one of the most effective arguments in favor of a post-Marcion composition of Acts is put forward by Knox (op. cit., p.119-123). Marcion chose an early form of the Gospel of Luke (ur-Luke) as his 'canonical' Gospel. Would he have done so if it were already attached to the Acts of the Apostles, a document which portrayed Paul in a way that directly contradicted Marcions's own view of Paul? Marcion claimed that Paul was independent of Jesus' original disciples and was thus free of the “Jewish corruption” (in Marcion's eyes) which those apostles had brought to Jesus' teaching. Yet an Acts of the Apostles integrated with the Gospel of Luke, [RB> Helmut Koester in “Ancient Christian Gospels”, p.339] would have discredited that very claim making it highly unlikely that Marcion would have chosen to use Luke at all.** ~ Earl Doherty, “The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?”, p.270


Christian apologists will argue for an early dating of Acts due to its silence on Paul's epistles. However, regardless of whenever Acts was originally penned, its author, undertaking to compose a biography of Paul, must have known Paul to have been a prolific letter writer. Thus, the silence on the Pauline corpus must have been intentional. The most likely reason for the intentional silence would be if Marcion was using the Pauline corpus at the time and proto-orthodoxy had not as yet rehabilitated Paul's letters for their preferred doctrines. Since evidence of NT canonical Luke cannot be found prior to Irenaeus, and Acts and canonical Luke were composed by the same author, it is rational and reasonable to date both post Marcion (c.85-c.160).

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

@Jayman One line of evidence that the Gospels are unreliable as evidence for an HJ can be ferreted out from the many contradictions between the stories. Mark was first. It bears the hallmarks of pious fiction and lacks the ring of truth. Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with additional material incorporated from Q and Gospel of Thomas sayings. Consider that the Matthean and Lukian authors and redactors intentionally chose to change the words allegedly uttered by God incarnate or Son of God. This is very strong evidence they understood the stories to be allegorical inspirational midrash. Randel Helms points this out in his book Gospel Fictions I posted a quote from his book here

That the evangelists changed the final words of Jesus from one Gospel to another is strong evidence they knew the story to be fictional. Your bald assertion of reliability of the NT docs completely fails because the NTGs are probably fictional and the Pauline corpus knows nothing of a HJ. The epistles of Peter and James are either silent on HJ or can be interpreted as deconfirming HJ. The author of Hebrews fantasized a cosmic ghostly Jesus. Revelations is an acid trip. Star Trek stories are abundant in print and video, but the Enterprise is not real. Asserting many people hold or held a delusion does not make it real.

Unknown said...

@Jayman There are more written sources about Jesus that were written within 100 years of his ministry than there are of Tiberius Caesar from within 100 years of his death. Do you also believe Tiberius Caesar did not exist?

Usually the comparison is between JC and Socrates or Julius Caesar. Kudos to you for thinking outside the box. Jay Humpries at jesusneverexisted.com has dispatched your rebuttal. Please read. I'm too tired to type any more tonight.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
You simply ignore the numerous NT references to persecution and martyrdom.

PAUL
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Persecution was over the issue of circumcision,and Christian leaders compromised their beliefs,and avoided persecution by compromising.

Paul did not compromise on circumcision and so was persecuted.

How is Jayman getting on with evidence that Thomas existed?

Badly, or else he would not have to pretend that nobody is asking for evidence that Thomas existed.

Mind you to be fair, Mormons also ignore requests for evidence that the Angel Moroni existed.

Jayman is simply doing what all religious people do when they are cornered.

He is just ignoring the fact that he is being torn apart.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
The speech only makes sense if the Jews were rejecting Stephen's message about Jesus, the gospel

CARR
Stephen never mentions the name 'Jesus'.

And Stephen,of course, is not even claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus.

According to Acts, Stephen had a vision of Jesus in Heaven, which nobody else present could see.

And, according to Acts, Stephen never claimed a resurrected Jesus walked the Earth. This 'Son of Man' was in Heaven.

But Jayman is so blinded by his religion that even when you point out what the words in his book say , in black and white, he is unable to read them accurately.

If Acts says Stephen had a vision of Jesus in Heaven that nobody else present could see, Jayman will claim Stephen saw an empty tomb.

Even if not one bit of the speech ever talks about any empty tomb.

That is how blind Jayman is.

No wonder Jayman ignores atheists he can't answer.

Jayman even ignores his own Bible when it contradicts him.

Unknown said...

@Jayman (1) Hello. Good morning. After these two messages, I return to main topic. There are several problems with your comments. Asserting evidence from simply believing the Gospel stories is an Ad Hoc special pleading; its circular question begging and appeal to authority. The Gospels are claims & not evidence. Your assertion that they were written within 100 years of the alleged events means nothing because Matthew & Luke are based on Mark and Q. Mark is fictional midrash, so when it was written is a moot point. John roughly follows Mark's outline but its obvious theological trajectory and late composition renders it worthless in support of HJ.

Dennis R. McDonald's book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark and Robert M. Price's New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash demonstrate this point.

Price wrote a book length refutation of pop theological drivel found in Strobel's The Case for Christ entitled The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel


Also read Earl Doherty's book Challenging the Verdict where Mr. Doherty deconstructs and unveils apologetical fallacies while positing more probable explanations.

You should answer Steven Carr's question. If your case is strong, surly you can provide extra biblical evidence for the existence of Thomas. But there is only silence in the first century amongst non-Christian chroniclers of current events corroborating your god man or stories of religious origins.

Unknown said...

@Jayman (1) There are several problems with your comments. Asserting evidence from simply believing the Gospel stories is an Ad Hoc special pleading; its circular question begging and appeal to authority. The Gospels are claims & not evidence. Your assertion that they were written within 100 years of the alleged events means nothing because Matthew & Luke are based on Mark and Q. Mark is fictional midrash, so when it was written is a moot point. John roughly follows Mark's outline but its obvious theological trajectory and late composition renders it worthless in support of HJ.

Dennis R. McDonald's book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark and Robert M. Price's New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash demonstrate this point.

Price wrote a book length refutation of pop theological drivel found in Strobel's The Case for Christ entitled The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel


Also read Earl Doherty's book Challenging the Verdict where Mr. Doherty deconstructs and unveils apologetical fallacies while positing more probable explanations.

You should answer Steven Carr's question. If your case is strong, surly you can provide extra biblical evidence for the existence of Thomas. But there is only silence in the first century amongst non-Christian chroniclers of current events corroborating your god man or stories of religious origins.

Unknown said...

@Jayman (2) Your fallacy in asserting a version of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction discredits your attempt at refuting the facts of reality. Material existence exists independent of any consciousness. The Law of Identity, A=A, holds in all cases such that existence's casualty prevents any valid or sound appeal to multiple worlds hypothesizes. This means super-naturalism cannot happen in any context of reality, “e.g." nature. Thus no person can both think naturalism true and not true simultaneously unless they are confused. There is no dichotomy at the root of human cognition.

Please see Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition
and at this message thread. Click the link provided by dragonfly to go to a lively debate on the ASD.

Read George A. Wells The Jesus Myth and The Jesus Legend.

I and Steven Carr participated in a lengthy discussion of Well's work and 1 Cor 15 at here and here and here

There are 6 more lengthy blog entries on Mr Bethrick's blog that follow these three where much is said that exposes the fallacy of literal Jesusism. You may enjoy engaging Mr Bethrick in discussion regarding your faith or epistemology issues. Best Wishes and regards.

Steven Carr said...

BUMBALOUGH
If your case is strong, surly you can provide extra biblical evidence for the existence of Thomas.

CARR
The point is that not even Christians named themselves as having ever seen Thomas, Judas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Joanna, Salome etc.

They do not appear outside the Novels.

They are as well attested as the characters in the Book of Mormon.

Normally Christians now start to explain that sceptics should not even expect evidence of these people existing, as it is absurd to think there should be evidence that these people existed.

Jayman said...

Robert (Part 1):

One line of evidence that the Gospels are unreliable as evidence for an HJ can be ferreted out from the many contradictions between the stories.

That's evidence of a level of independence. The criterion of multiple attestation could then be applied to multiple Gospels to strengthen the evidence for the historicity of the points that they agree on. Discrepancies and contradictions between sources is not unique to the study of the historical Jesus.

Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with additional material incorporated from Q and Gospel of Thomas sayings.

If Matthew and Luke were writing fiction why did they incorporate earlier sources instead of making up the story?

Consider that the Matthean and Lukian authors and redactors intentionally chose to change the words allegedly uttered by God incarnate or Son of God. This is very strong evidence they understood the stories to be allegorical inspirational midrash.

"Midrash is a type of literature, oral or written, which has its starting point in a fixed canonical text, considered the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, and in which this original verse is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4.819). The Gospels are clearly not midrash.

That the evangelists changed the final words of Jesus from one Gospel to another is strong evidence they knew the story to be fictional.

Few ancient sources are giving verbatim quotations. This is all the more the case when we are dealing with a translation, as we are for the words of Jesus. The gist of Jesus' sayings are consistent across the Gospels.

Jayman said...

Robert (part 2):

Your bald assertion of reliability of the NT docs completely fails because the NTGs are probably fictional and the Pauline corpus knows nothing of a HJ.

Paul refers to the following facts (note I am not including all the references to the words of Jesus):
* Jesus' humanity (Rom 1:3; 5:15, 17-19; 8:3; 9:5; 1Co 11:27; 15:21, 47-49; 2Cor 5:16; 8:9; Gal 1:19; 4:4; Eph 2:14; Php 2:7; Col 1:21; 2:9; 1Th 1:6; 1Ti 1:15; 2:5; 3:16; 2Ti 1:10)
* Jesus' Davidic descent (Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8)
* The Last Supper (1Co 10:16, 21; 11:23-25)
* The Jews were involved in the death of Jesus (1Th 2:14-15)
* Jesus went before Pontius Pilate (1Ti 6:13)
* Jesus was crucified (Rom 6:6; 1Co 1:17-18, 23; 2:2, 8; 2Co 13:4; Gal 2:19; 3:1, 13; 5:11; 6:12, 14; Eph 2:16; Php 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14)
* Jesus bled (Rom 5:9; 1Co 11:27; Col 1:20; Eph 1:7; 2:13)
* Jesus suffered (Rom 8:17; 2Co 1:5; Gal 6:17; Php 3:10; Col 1:24)
* Jesus died around Passover (1Co 5:7)
* Jesus died (Rom 3:25; 4:25; 5:6, 8; 6:3, 5, 8-9; 8:31, 34; 14:9, 15; 1Co 5:7; 8:11; 11:26; 15:3, 20-21; 2Co 4:10; 5:14-15; Gal 2:21; Eph 2:16; 5:2, 25; Php 2:8; 3:10; Col 1:21; 2:20; 1Th 2:15; 4:14; 5:10; 2Ti 2:11; Ti 2:14)
* Jesus was buried (Rom 6:4; 1Co 15:4; Col 2:12)
* Jesus rose from the dead (Rom 1:4; 4:24; 6:4-5, 8-10; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 14:9; 1Co 6:14; 15:4, 5-8, 12, 20-21; 2Co 4:10-11, 14; 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 2:6; Php 3:10; Col 1:18; 2:12; 3:1; 1Th 1:10; 4:14; 2Ti 2:8)
* Jesus ascended into heaven (Rom 10:6; 1Ti 3:16)

The epistles of Peter and James are either silent on HJ or can be interpreted as deconfirming HJ.

Silence is not disconfirmation. Epistles are not intended to be biographies. Nonetheless, the Petrine Letters state that Jesus was a human being (1Pet 3:18; 4:1; 2Pet 1:16, 18), that he underwent a transfiguration (2Pet 1:16-18), that he bled (1Pet 1:2, 19), suffered (1Pet 1:11; 2:21, 23, 24; 4:1, 13; 5:1), died (1 Pet 3:18) by crucifixion (1Pet 2:24), and rose from the dead (1Pet 1:3, 21; 3:18, 21). James alludes to Jesus' teaching without explicitly invoking his name. For example, in 5:12 he recalls Jesus' prohibition of oaths (Matt 5:33-37). Jesus is the only Jew we know of from that period to absolutely ban the taking of oaths. It is also strange that letters attributed to the apostle Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, are being used to "disconfirm" Jesus' historicity.

The author of Hebrews fantasized a cosmic ghostly Jesus.

No, he clearly thought Jesus was a human (2:9, 14, 17; 5:7; 10:5, 20) descended from Judah (7:14). He refers to Jesus praying (5:7). He refers to Jesus' blood (9:12, 14; 10:19, 29; 12:24; 13:12, 20), suffering (2:18; 5:8; 13:12), death (1:3; 2:9, 14; 7:28; 9:14, 15, 26, 28; 10:10, 12) by crucifixion (6:6; 12:2) outside the city gate (13:12), and the resurrection (13:20).

Revelations is an acid trip.

Only someone ignorant of apocalyptic literature could hold that view.

Jayman said...

Robert (Part 3):

The Gospels are claims & not evidence.

When doing history testimony is evidence. I would love to hear how you can do history without relying on testimony.

Dennis R. McDonald's book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

Here's a relevant quote from the Wikipedia entry on Dennis MacDonald: "MacDonald's work regarding the New Testament writings and Homeric epics has not attained mainstream support in New Testament studies and is contrary to modern form criticism. New Testament scholar Karl Olav Sandnes, author of the monograph The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets, and Early Christianity critiqued MacDonald in an article of the Journal for Biblical Literature.[4] Sandnes notes the vague nature of alleged parallels as the 'Achilles' heel' of the 'slippery' project. He has also questioned the nature of the alleged paralleled motifs, seeing MacDonald's interpretations of common motives. He states, 'His [MacDonald's] reading is fascinating and contributes to a reader-orientated exegesis. But he fails to demonstrate authorial intention while he, in fact, neglects the OT intertextuality that is broadcast in this literature.' (732)"

Robert M. Price's New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash demonstrate this point.

Given the definition of midrash it is clear the Gospels are not midrash (see above).

Also read Earl Doherty's book Challenging the Verdict where Mr. Doherty deconstructs and unveils apologetical fallacies while positing more probable explanations.

I've read some of Doherty's online material. He makes the sources fit his theory, not the other way around.

You should answer Steven Carr's question. If your case is strong, surly you can provide extra biblical evidence for the existence of Thomas.

I've responded to Carr before. He ignores or misrepresents the position of those who disagree with him and then posts the same questions that have just been answered. Your basic argument appears to be: (1) if Thomas is not mentioned in extra-biblical literature then he did not exist; (2) Thomas is not mentioned in extra-biblical literature; (3) therefore, Thomas did not exist. Premise 1 is false because it arbitrarily ignores the biblical evidence for Thomas' existence. Premise 2 is false because extra-biblical sources do mention Thomas. Remember, you mentioned the Gospel of Thomas earlier!

But there is only silence in the first century amongst non-Christian chroniclers of current events corroborating your god man or stories of religious origins.

It is arbitrary to concern yourself only with non-Christian sources. Nevertheless Josephus, a Jew, does mention Jesus and his brother James. While there are some Christian interpolations in the passage about Jesus, the authenticity of part of the reference appears confirmed by an Arabic translation.

Read George A. Wells The Jesus Myth and The Jesus Legend.

Hasn't even Wells recanted his mythicism?

Solipsister said...

Apologies in advance to everyone if what follows drags things too far off topic. I've attempted to followed the debate from 1-83 and if I've missed a key section that addresses my questions, feel free to point me to the post and I'll go read quietly to myself.

@ Jayman:
I’ll leave the proof texting debate to the pros. I’ve just got a few questions for you on more general points.
1) Could you tell us what has greater weight for you, contradiction or consistency? I’ve noticed that theists seem to swing from one to the other—contradiction is evidence of independence and consistency is evidence of coherent testimony (or something) but both seem to warrant claims about Truth. Which for you matters more? That is, is a text chock-full of contradiction more True than one that is virtually free of contradiction, or is it the other way around? Your answer would tell us something important about your epistemology, which I for one am trying to figure out.

2) You say, “If Matthew and Luke were writing fiction why did they incorporate earlier sources instead of making up the story?” Really? Read literature (aside from the Bible) much? Seems to me even a cursory review of literature should put that claim to rest. You don’t honestly mean to claim that a fiction writer doesn’t ever draw upon previous sources, especially figures and tropes from myth. Just because White drew upon Malory (who himself drew from earlier fiction)doesn’t mean there ever was a King Arthur.

3) You say, “The gist of Jesus’ sayings are consistent across the Gospels.” Wow. By that standard, why stop there? It seems to me, then, that Andrew Lloyd Weber and Nikos Kazantzakis have equivalent epistemic status to the canonical gospels as far as claims about Jesus go, since the “gist” of Jesus’ message in their work is consistent with the canon. I’d probably be OK with that, since Ted Nealy was way dreamy. But are you? In other words, what for you, marks the line where “gist” becomes “heresy”?

Thanks and Cheers!
Solipsister

Jayman said...

Solipsister:

(1) I've referred to the criterion of multiple attestation. Basically, all else being equal, an historical claim supported by multiple independent sources is on firmer historical ground than an historical claim supported by only one source. Regarding our present subject, claims about the historical Jesus are on the firmest ground when the Gospels contradict each other on minor points and agree on major points. Read John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew series to see a rigorous display of historical methodology concerning Jesus.

(2) You are correct that writers of fiction can borrow from other sources. But I notice that you qualify your statement with "especially figures and tropes" as if to admit lengthy verbatim quotations are rare. In the case of the Gospels we are dealing with lengthy verbatim quotations. Citing earlier sources verbatim is normal for historians so Robert's argument fails to suggest that the Gospels are fiction. The consensus view is that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. Read Richard Burridge's book What Are the Gospels? for why this is so.

(3) I have not spoken of orthodoxy and heresy. I am interested in historicity and non-historicity. When it comes to ancient history (and even most of modern history) you are unlikely to retrieve the exact words that someone spoke but you can retrieve the basic message. It is ridiculous to assume that a source is writing fiction because it uses different words to describe someone's message. A modern historian's reconstruction of Jesus is good to the extant that it conforms to the information that can be gleaned from the primary sources.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
Regarding our present subject, claims about the historical Jesus are on the firmest ground when the Gospels contradict each other on minor points and agree on major points.

CARR
Even the Biblical authors knew this was ridiculous.

Mark 14
56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

If witnesses agree on the main points 'I will destroy this temple and build another,' but disagree on the details, they are discredited.

Jayman is still claiming that if Matthew deliberately changed what Mark wrote, that makes their story true.

Ludicrous.

As ludicrous as claiming that these witnesses in this alleged trial must have been telling the truth because they contradicted each other.

How is Jayman getting on with showing that Jesus flew into the sky?

He has totally given up trying to find evidence that Judas, Thomas, Barabbas, Joseph of Arimathea existed.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
In the case of the Gospels we are dealing with lengthy verbatim quotations

JAYMAN
Basically, all else being equal, an historical claim supported by multiple independent sources

CARR
Jayman happily argues out of both sides of his mouth.

He claims the Gospel writers copy each other verbatim.

And he also claims they are independent of each other.

No wonder Jayman cannot see contradictions in the Bible when he cannot even read what he writes and understands what he writes.

If one source copies from another, they are independent sources.

That is Christian logic and Jayman will defend the claim that independent sources copy from each other in lengthy verbatim quotations no matter how foolish it makes Christianity look.

Jayman is doing a grand job, and I would like to point out that he is not me writing under a false name.

Jayman is real.

Unknown said...

@Steven Carr Sir good morning. Would you give my short blog entry a read and let me know if you think that argument may have merit. Many Thanks and best wishes too. ~ Robert Bumbalough

about 1 Cor 15:5-8

Solipsister said...

@Jayman: By the standards you put forth for identifying if a text is making historical claims, “Little Red Riding Hood” is a true story about a real little girl, a grandmother, and a wolf.

1) You characterized multiple attestation as: “Basically, all else being equal, an historical claim supported by multiple independent sources is on firmer grounds than an historical claim supported by only one source.” Well, so much for Paul and that horse. With regard to resurrection narratives, aside from begging the question that we are indeed dealing with historical claims, you’d then need to concede the “truthiness” (that’s Colbert, not you, but the term does seem apt) of stories about Thomas, et al. (on whom Carr and others has pressed you, but you’ve failed to address) start to look dodgy. Perhaps you could provide a clear ranking of the relative reliability of the constituent parts of the resurrection narratives, per your criteria of determining historicity?

2) Weasel phrases don’t help you advance your argument, frankly, since “all else being equal,” “firmest ground,” and “contradict each other on minor points and agree on major” are of no use if we don’t have the same ruler. If someone asks, “How many women and who were they?” or “What’s up with the stone?” you can brandish your “firmness ruler” and declare these minor points. If the major point is “resurrection in general “ and all the other missing and/or contradictory details of the story are minor, then every historical claim becomes reliable and your position sure wouldn’t count as “a rigorous display of historical methodology,” since all it comes down to is “if they contradict it’s minor and if they’re consistent it’s major.”

3) Your claim was that Matthew and Luke couldn’t have been writing fiction if they incorporated earlier sources. My response was that literature is full of borrowing so to claim that the presence of borrowing from other sources is evidence of the historicity of the claims in a text is a bad argument. You clarified your original claim to mean “lengthy verbatim quotations” and said since historians use lengthy verbatim quotations, therefore the gospels are making historical claims. Come on, now. For your conclusion to be valid, you’d have to demonstrate that “lengthy verbatim quotations” are exclusively the tool of historians, which you can’t. I won’t bother providing you a list of non-historical writers who borrow from other sources, since I already know you and I won’t agree on what constitutes “lengthy” and “verbatim” and I also suspect you’d dismiss my examples by whipping out something that resembles your major/minor and firmness rulers.

4) I asked you to clarify what constitutes the boundaries of “the gist” of a story. You said “gist” is “basic message.” Real clear, there, Roget. Similarly unhelpful is “to the extent it conforms,” since we know nothing of your extent. Absent precision regarding what “the gist,” “the basic message” and “the major points” are, we’re at an impasse and I have no reason from you to accept the resurrection narrative of the Christian Bible as an historical claim, much less a reliable claim.

Cheers!

Jayman said...

Solipsister (part 1):

By the standards you put forth for identifying if a text is making historical claims, “Little Red Riding Hood” is a true story

Since Little Red Riding Hood is of a fictional genre this is not the case.

aside from begging the question that we are indeed dealing with historical claims

Referring to a book-length treatment of the genre of the Gospels is not begging the question.

you’d then need to concede the “truthiness” of stories about Thomas, et al. start to look dodgy.

I said multiply attested accounts are on firmer ground than singly attested accounts. I did not say that singly attested accounts are necessarily unreliable.

Perhaps you could provide a clear ranking of the relative reliability of the constituent parts of the resurrection narratives, per your criteria of determining historicity?

The two main parts of the resurrection narrative, the empty tomb and the appearances to the disciples, are on firm ground since they both are multiply attested. That the disciples risked persecution/martyrdom shows that they were sincere and sure of themselves. The fact that Matthew included the possibly scandalizing note about the Jews believing Jesus' disciples stole the body is evidence that even the Jews admitted the tomb was empty. The resurrection is coherent with what else we know about the rise of Christianity and explains that rise better than competing theories. Although his current volumes do not deal with the resurrection, John P. Meier's four-volume A Marginal Jew series explains and applies the criteria of authenticity to much of the Gospel material.

Weasel phrases don’t help you advance your argument, frankly, since “all else being equal,” “firmest ground,” and “contradict each other on minor points and agree on major” are of no use if we don’t have the same ruler

The "ruler" is the historical-grammatical method and the criteria of authenticity. If these terms are new to you then I suggest reading some introductory works on the historical Jesus (from university presses not Prometheus Books).

If someone asks, “How many women and who were they?” or “What’s up with the stone?” you can brandish your “firmness ruler” and declare these minor points.

The historical-grammatical method should allow us to determine the major and minor points the author was trying to make.

If the major point is “resurrection in general “ and all the other missing and/or contradictory details of the story are minor, then every historical claim becomes reliable and your position sure wouldn’t count as “a rigorous display of historical methodology,” since all it comes down to is “if they contradict it’s minor and if they’re consistent it’s major.”

The bold section doesn't follow at all. An historical claim that there were X women at the empty tomb would be weak if there are contradictions over the number of women at the tomb. An historical claim that some women were at the empty tomb would be on stronger grounds but would be more general in nature.

Jayman said...

Solipsister (part 2):

Your claim was that Matthew and Luke couldn’t have been writing fiction if they incorporated earlier sources.

My response was to show that Robert's inference was incorrect. Incorporating earlier sources is not a sign of fiction and is consistent with history.

You clarified your original claim to mean “lengthy verbatim quotations” and said since historians use lengthy verbatim quotations, therefore the gospels are making historical claims

I did not make that argument. I believe the Gospels are making historical claims because (1) they are of a genre known to be used by authors making historical claims and (2) the earliest readers of the Gospels, both Christian and non-Christian, believed they were conveying history. My point was that quotations are consistent with histories.

Absent precision regarding what “the gist,” “the basic message” and “the major points” are, we’re at an impasse

What would constitute precision? We are dealing with qualitative terms.

Similarly unhelpful is “to the extent it conforms,” since we know nothing of your extent.

Yes you do since the next phrase of the sentence is "to the information that can be gleaned from the primary sources." How is information gleaned from the primary sources? The historico-grammatical method and the criteria of authenticity. What are the primary sources? The Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, Josephus, etc.

Solipsister said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Solipsister said...

Your approach allows you to define inconsistency as simultaneously necessary and irrelevant: the most reliable accounts have inconsistencies but these will be conveniently on minor points not necessary to historicity; just as long as a major point which is so general as to be un-provable is consistently held we’re on “firm ground.” You can play around with your ruler and give it a name (and I’m familiar with your terms; condescend much?), but you aren’t defining words that YOU use in YOUR deployment of these methods. Instead, you rely on weasel phrases in order to give yourself room to adjust your argument as you please. If what we’ve seen is the best you can do with “four volumes,” you need to spend more time reading the books you rush to recommend.

Now, I've got to go see a Great Pumpkin about a beagle.

GearHedEd said...

Solipsister said to J-man,

"...And if people are willing to do bat-shit crazy-ass stuff like die, then they are sincere and must really have believed the stories were history so that means those stories WERE history! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN."

The people who died for Christianity wouldn't necessarily have had to believe in the resurrection to have been willing to be executed for their beliefs, if their beliefs INCLUDED the concept that there was a better world waiting on the 'other side', which I hear was (and still is) a common belief, having little to do with whether Jesus really existed (or was resurrected as advertised) or not.

And let's not forget that life in those days could be pretty miserable even in the best of times. Back then, lack of air conditioning ALONE would make many modern people crave death, if you transplanted them into that milieu.

"Am I the only one who thinks you keep shifting definitions?"

Nope. Carr has said so already, and I see it too, but haven't commented. You're doing a good job without my meager talents, 'Sister.

Solipsister said...

Oy vey. One should not drive and post on a blackberry. Massive apologies for the ridiculous multiposts, which I'll delete as soon as I can.

Jayman said...

Solipsister:

(1) I don't presuppose the genre of the Gospels. In his book, Burridge notes the characteristics of Greco-Roman biographies (excluding the Gospels). He then sees if the Gospels share most of those characteristics and it turns out that they do. Little Red Riding Hood does not.

(2) History deals with probability. We can be more certain of fact A than we are of fact B while still believing that both are historically accurate. There may also be multiple lines of evidence concerning an historical question and thus phrases such as "all else being equal" or necessary to respect this fact.

(3) When multiple sources are literarily dependent on each other then they are not independent sources. Depending on the episode in question, there may or may not be multiple independent attestation regarding the episode. One cannot make a blanket statement that the Gospels are completely independent of each other or completely dependent on each other.

(4) A primary source for Jesus would be any source written about Jesus within living memory of his ministry. The NT was written within this time frame while an apocryphal gospel from the third century, for example, was not.

(5) You ignored my comments about the historico-grammatical method determining what are major and minor points in an account. You also ignored my recommendation to read about the criteria of authenticity to learn what would make a Gospel story reliable. I'm not trying to be condescending but I don't get the sense that you grasp how historians approach the Gospels.

Solipsister said...

@Jayman,
Re Your 1: “Little Red Riding Hood does not.” How would you know? Is there a Burridge text I should consult? I’m being facetious because your incessant swinging off of Burridge is tedious.

Re Your 2: “History…probability…multiple lines…yada-yada.” I never questioned the notion that historical claims involve degrees of facticity. I never challenged the appropriateness of any particular method to which you are committed. I questioned your sloppy rhetoric and implication that you get a free pass to use weasel words once you’ve joined the “I’m an historic-critical scholar” club.

Re Your 3: Here we go again. A new criterion added to your list, one that has to do with texts being “literarily dependent” but I have no clue how you want to apply it in a particular case nor how it coheres with the rest of your ever-expanding criteria.

Re Your 4: Okey-dokey. For purposes of what I was griping about in this thread (your sloppy flinging about of standards), all I care about is that you specified what counts for you as primary (because one never knows). Thanks. Whether those sources actually say anything “historical” about the resurrection is a separate issue, on which you and I will clearly never agree.

Re Your 5: I didn’t ignore your comments about HC method. I parodied your comments about the method. My quarrel was with your characterizations and rhetorical strategies, not a particular scholarly tool. As I said, unless your comments here have been “lengthy verbatim passages” from biblical historians of the historic-critical stripe, then the correct sense to get is that I don’t grasp you, not historians.

Thanks for taking the time, but I think we're done.

Cheers!

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
One cannot make a blanket statement that the Gospels are completely independent of each other or completely dependent on each other.

CARR
If A used B then A is dependent upon B, no matter how many times Jayman says the Gospel writers copied from each other verbatim and yet were still miraculously independent of each other.



In Jayman's mind, 'independent' means that 'Matthew' read what 'Mark' had written, and changed the story to cover up the obvious fact that Mark had left Christians wide open to charges of grave-robbing.

In Jayman's mind , 'independent' means stories were changed to try to make them more convincing.

Unknown said...

Getting back on topic, is it rational to doubt the resurrection stories even if unbelievers find hitherto unrealized inconsistencies, fallacies, contradictions occurring between the various gospels? No. It is irrational to think the resurrection stories literally true. See this page for a brief run down on a few of the problems with literal resurrection belief based on the NT Gospels. The interested reader will find, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave is an engaging interesting anthology where ten compentent authors show further difficulties with the resurrection accounts. Richard Carrier's Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story and The Carrier-O'Connell Debate are also of interest.

Unknown said...

@jayman coherence is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for truth

Since the NT Gospels are incoherent relative to one another and to the Gnostic Gospels, then, by your own standard, the story fails the necessary condition for truth status. It then would be rational to hold that the prior probability of Jesus historicity and thus resurrection is very low. My Bayesian argument then would correctly conclude that it is irrational to believe Jesus of Nazareth either existed or resurrected even if supernatural could be defined in a positive sense.

Best Wishes and Regards

Unknown said...

The undeniable fact that the early Christian cult leaders and evangelists were comfortable changing the Jesus story from that described by canonical Mark in significant ways attests they were cognitively aware of crafting fictional Haggadahic Midrash for doctrinal and theological purposes. The NT canonical Gospels are not History even though they employ caricatures of know people who actually did live. Claiming the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies is a red herring due to the incompatibilities between the two distinctively different cultural milieus. The philosophical Sitz im Leben of Grecian vs Roman wold views is akin to the dichotomy between Gnostic vs literal Christianity. So there can be no rational standard even remotely identifiable as what we think of as history associated with such labeling as "Greco-Roman biography". And the fact still remains that New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash is defensible and very likely true.

Jayman said...

Robert:

Since the NT Gospels are incoherent relative to one another and to the Gnostic Gospels, then, by your own standard, the story fails the necessary condition for truth status.

It means that we may not know whether a specific, narrowly-defined historical claim is true or false. This does not mean we jump to the conclusion that all the Gospels are fiction.

It then would be rational to hold that the prior probability of Jesus historicity and thus resurrection is very low.

It would be irrational to make such a jump. Consider the modern day example of the sinking of the Titanic. Some eyewitnesses claimed that the ship broke apart before it sank while other eyewitnesses claimed it sank as one piece. Are we to entertain the idea that the Titanic did not exist? No, we merely admit that we can't know, on the basis of the eyewitness testimony, whether the Titanic sank as one piece (when the wreck was found it was determined that the ship had broken apart).

Solipsister said...

Jeepers. It's me again (I know, too soon. It's the candy corn.) I swear to all the non-existent gods that I shall: a) not post this a million times and b) not start up another foxtrot with Jayman, since I got all clumsy last time and I think Mr. Bumbalough has a classy lil' waltz coming up. Just a quick question for the board and then I'm off to tackle my new reading list!

I'm hoping to find out whether someone actually smacked a champagne bottle across the bow of the HMS Lord & Savior. I'm not trained or anything, but I'd guess that the facticity of "the Titanic was a real boat" is just a smidge higher than "Jesus Christ was a real person." And even if we grant the idea that there was a real individual, isn't "he was supernaturally raised from the dead" a bit of an orange to the Titanic's apple? But even if it's not, then based on this writer's analogy (or Licona's, but maybe they're "literarily dependent" or something) the conclusion should be that the gospel writers, if they were writing history, would say, "We're pretty sure there was a guy named Jesus, but because the eyewitnesses are few and inconsistent, on the basis of eyewitness testimony we aren't sure of the resurrection part, but we'll get back to you if James Cameron drags him back to the surface." Isn't that, if it stays afloat, where the metaphorical boat should end up?

Gandolf said...

Steven Carr said ..."If you are selling garbage, you can't keep selling it once people have pointed out that you are selling garbage."

Hi Steven Carr, maybe you might agree ,yes garbage is really hard to sell, that is unless your able to use the extra tactic of extreme fear.

Its fear that sees many folks (specially in the USA) today,still very afraid to admit disbelief.Some because of fear of hell,others through fear of being shunned and mistreated by all those and specially including those close family around them who still do believe in hell.

Your whole living and life can be at stake should you dare admit disbelief.Family love,friendships and social networking,jobs and income etc.

The same fear tactic tool helps seal the fate of many people specially the youth within Al Qaeda and gangs and even governments like Kim Jong-il runs.

The question about why people might seem to be so fully prepared to follow a silly faith ideology, even when it means being persecuted seems pretty much like a real "no-brainer" to me .After all, what choice is there really? .Often it comes down to the fact that one honestly needs to be fully prepared to simply accept being persecuted by either one side or the other.If you go "against" a gang or government of Kim Jong-il or Christianity or Islam etc then they`ll persecute ya , or if instead you decide to choose to go "with" the ideology, then those who wished you went "against" it will be about to be persecuting you one way or the other soon also too.

Meaning the choice is between 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other,your choice is persecution or persecution ,the only other choice that remains as a decider "trump card" !,is the extra choice between country family and friends or social network surrounding your life situation ,or the parties that appose the ideology you often only happen to be born into or have become caught up in.

People that dont understand why some people might follow ideologies that really might seem totally insane to many on the outside ,obviously have lived such very sheltered lives ! full of much plain sailing and many sunday picnics.

Crikey folks,please even just take a wee look at many of our schools and you`ll also see how many kids become forced into line with fear tatics , suddenly taking up behaviours that many times seem strangly radical and many times might even seem totally out of their usual charactor.And try to start to understand quite often the choice is between "persecution verses persecution" ,the trump card being deciding which decision makes for less persecution and better sailing within the waters you find your boat must need to try sail through.

People are still persecuted and die for very many different ideologies all the time.

Besides ,try outing yourself into the open as a atheist in the USA even today and feel the heat of the backfire you must often need to face being extremely hated even worse! than being gay,and then rethink your faithful thoughts about why folks of old times when factions of faith often ruled even more! might have rather chose the choice of persecution for faith.

Unknown said...

Hello Readers: I'm behind on reading this thread. However, The following links are offered in support of my earlier contentions that the Gospels should not be viewed as reliable historical documents but rather are fictional Haggadahic Midrash.

Here is Richard Carrier on Dennis MacDonald's book: Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

Dennis R. Macdonald wrote that Mark "thoroughly, cleverly, and strategically emulated" stories in Homer and the Old Testament, merging two great cultural classics, in order "to depict Jesus as more compassionate, powerful, noble, and inured to suffering than Odysseus" (p. 6), and hence "the earliest evangelist was not writing a historical biography, as many interpreters suppose, but a novel, a prose anti-epic of sorts" (p. 7).

Here's a link to a Rational Responders thread where a case is made that the Gospels are not biographies. They are Midrash. This thread features several quotes from Earl Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle (Highly Recommended.)

Michael Hoffman of, egodeath.com, wrote an interesting and poignant comment on the Yahoo Jesusmysteries group that closely reflects my views.

Best Regards and Wishes

Unknown said...

Ken Hunphreys of Jesusneverexisted.com has a Nazareth page, and its common for defenders of HJ to assert Nazareth was settled or inhabited in the early 1st century but was an obscure small hamlet that no chronicler of events would have noticed. There are problems with that view.

Jayman said...

Solipsister, I'm not claiming that the historicity of Jesus and the historicity of the Titanic are based on the same amount of evidence. My point is that Robert's methodology yields the wrong results when we apply it to cases other than Jesus. An objective historian will apply the same methodology to every historical investigation. If discrepancies in the Gospels suggest that the Gospels are fiction then discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the Titanic suggest that those eyewitnesses were also creating fiction. Note that my methodology, of admitting uncertainty when sources disagree but arguing for the historicity of the points they agree on, gets it right.

shane said...

Jayman.

Sorry haven't been on in a few days. As far as your oct 28 8:17 response to me, I have to say that your missing some important points!

First of all, the differences in the resurrection narritives are not minor differences. They are directly inconsistent (especially comparing the gospel of John's account with the synoptics accounts of the resurrection)!

Secondly, your response that the gospels are a product of multiple assestation is still unsound concerning christian doctrine.
According to most christians the bible (especially the gospels) are suppossed to be the word of God! They are suppossed to be inerrant and infallibly true?
The fact that they all give us a narritive which is inconsistent with eachother shows that this claim of inerrant truth cannot hold up!

There can only be one truth, and therefore not all accounts of the resurrection can be true at the same time!

Example - If one witness says that John Smith was bitten by "a" dog in my back yard early this morning, another witness tells me John Smith was bitten by "two" dogs in my backyard early this morning, and a third witness indictates that John Smith was not bitten at all in my backyard this morning, but was instead bitten later on in the afternoon upon their second visit to my backyard.........can they all be 100% true at the same time?...Or...should I suspect one or more of the witnesses were mistaken?

Thirdly, as far as historical accuracies go, the four gospels are the only so called historical documents we have regarding Jesus resurrection? We have no independant confirmation apart from them. And when we consider that the gosepl authors may have had some agenda which may have coloured their writing, we have very good reason to doubt them!

This is the dilemma with the gospel narritives.

Unknown said...

[A] @Jayman I apologize for tardiness of my reply. Sir, your assertions that the Gospels are Prima Facie reliable as history flies in the face of how we apply standard constructions in ascertaining truthful testimonies. Consider the Christian apologetical dilemma posed by user Sally Ride

If you are able to cite an example of a recognized historical figure whose existence is established using the same methods as those applied to the gospel Jesus, please do so. Remember, this would require that a figure fulfill the same criteria of historicity as those that pertain to Jesus, namely:

1) The figure is completely unknown among his or her own people, as well as to all other (near) contemporaries. No original knowledge of the figure occurs in his or her homeland.

2) Any primary attestors to the figure’s existence are unknown and unidentifiable.

3) The sources in which the character originates are exclusively of a type and genre that are commonly viewed as fanciful and/or spurious. They may or may not be tales of a mystery god-man brought to earth in an historical setting, as we have with stories of Dionysus, Serapis, and Jesus, but they do fall within a category that is normally considered nonfactual (giant stories, creation epics, spiritualist channeling, or the publications of Marvel Comics are suitable exemplars). In no case do we find any attestation from a chronicler or historian working from disinterested sources.

Unknown said...

[B]
Sally Ride continued

4) The figure’s existence is originally reported only by foreigners, writing from well beyond the subject’s social and cultural milieu, long after he or she is supposed to have lived.

5) The figure’s existence is completely unattested by identifiable witnesses who would necessarily have known of and been interested in the figure, creating a severely anomalous silence.

We could add other criteria regarding attestor’s inability to confirm their historical knowledge of the subject or the self-serving/circular nature of original sources, but these less immediate and less direct issues.


These are the criteria by which those whom you cite have declared the Gospel accounts Prima Facie true. This hardly inspires any confidence in your claims.

Further to the issue of evidentiary standards for historical attestations. Please see Evidence, Miracles and the Existence of Jesus.doc by Stephen Law at the Yahoo mythicist_discussion group. Best wishes and regards.

Unknown said...

Regarding Sally Ride's

1) The figure is completely unknown among his or her own people, as well as to all other (near) contemporaries. No original knowledge of the figure occurs in his or her homeland.

Please recall. Nobody wrote of a possible HJ prior to canonical Gospel of Mark. Paul knew nothing of any HJ. Doherty argued convincingly that Paul's Christ was a Platonic transcendent realm spirit being and not an earthly human being.

Unknown said...

Regarding Sally Ride's 2) Any primary attestors to the figure’s existence are unknown and unidentifiable.

The Gospels are anonymous. It is unknown who wrote them, when or where they were composed. It is known they have been edited and redacted many times. There is no original autographs. Our canonical NT Gospels were but four of many. Other probable 1st century documents know nothing or next to nothing of the story penned by Mark.

Unknown said...

About SR's 3) The sources in which the character originates are exclusively of a type and genre that are commonly viewed as fanciful and/or spurious.

Christian apologists routinely reject as spurious all other religion's claims to factual truth. Did Joseph Smith really copy the BoM from the Golden Plates? Is is not more probable that JS's buddies lied about seeing the p GPs in their affidavits than that the fictional arch-angle Moroni directed JS to the plates and then translated them. Stories of miracles and supernatural events cannot be true because reality is not subject to the whims of consciousness. Narratives crafted as theater incorporating religious M/SN are Prima Facie not true because humanity has empirical evidence God is not real.

Unknown said...

Sally Ride's 4) The figure’s existence is originally reported only by foreigners, writing from well beyond the subject’s social and cultural milieu, long after he or she is supposed to have lived.

Mark was composed in the Greek language can be dated to the late 1st century long after the 1st Jewish war. It cannot be a 1st person account, and is certainly not a product of a Jewish Sitz im Leben. It bears the hallmarks of Haggadahic Midrash.

Unknown said...

SR's 5) The figure’s existence is completely unattested by identifiable witnesses who would necessarily have known of and been interested in the figure, creating a severely anomalous silence.

They should have known.

Solipsister said...

In other words, as I hear Robert, if there wasn’t ever a ship then it’s a tad silly to argue about whether we can trust people who can’t agree upon how the fictitious boat sank.

And no one to my knowledge argued that “If discrepancies in the Gospels suggest that the Gospels are fiction then discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the Titanic suggest that those eyewitnesses were also creating fiction.” Rather, discrepancies and incoherence and biased eyewitnesses in resurrection accounts (not to mention the writers’ bias) mean that by Jay’s own “method” we can’t say we are certain resurrection is an historical fact.

Now, Jay could say that Shane may not know what happened out back but has to concede there was a Smith, a yard, and minimally one biting dog. OK, but that then bleeds the resurrection accounts of anything but a hippie on a stick (I love that!), an empty cave and some claims about seeing a not-so-dead hippie that may or may not be reliable. That’s not what we’ve been treated to for 2000 years. What we've gotten is hardly “objective historiography,” by any method.

And you know what else? If I have reason to believe my condo association is going to use that one time Mrs. Jones’ poodle snapped at Mr. Smith the postman and turn it into a story about Cujo in the Cornfield so that they can rewrite the homeowners rules to say canines are demonic and therefore my kids shouldn't watch Lassie, and I should only vote for cat ladies, and it's a sin to find Cesar Milan kinda hot, then YES, I probably might be tempted to question the various stories about Smith and the dogs in the yard and call shenanigans on the whole thing.

Cheers!

Unknown said...

@jayman Hello: (1) If Gospel of Mark is historical and not midrash, then where did the author get his source information. There are not any literary records or nominal historical writings that reference HJ prior to Gospel of Mark that the evangelists could have drawn upon. The story was not written by an eyewitness nor is it the set of Logia sayings referenced by Eusebius from Papias’ description of what presbyter John spoke about. If Mark is not midrash, then why does it abound in parallels between the Homeric epics and Old Testament proof texts as shown by MacDonald and Price and Turton. Isn’t it true that if it walks, quacks, flies, swims like a duck, then its probably a duck. Mark looks all the world like a fictional story that was written to embody teachings, hopes, and aspirations of a Kingdom of God/Son of Man faith community. Thus its probably fictional, so its irrational to believe Jesus came back to life as a super zombie of some sort.

Unknown said...

@jayman (2) Regarding Thomas, I did not make an argument. When you speculated as to an argument I seemed to be making you were acting from your imagination in much the same manner as you do to maintain your god belief. (There is no way for religious apologists to distinguish any difference between god belief and god fantasy.) I made a statement that you should answer Mr. Carr. Thank you for doing so. There is a problem here for your position. If Thomas Didymus was a real guy and one of Jesus’s buddies, and if the Gospel of Thomas is evidence of his existence and dates to early times, then why are his doctrines so different from those preferred by the proto-Catholics? If, on the other hand, GoT is mid or late 2nd century, then where did those rascally Gnostic Christians get their silly notions? Perhaps oral tradition dating back to JC & TD? Or did they make it up? And if they did make it up, why couldn’t the author of Mark have simply made it up using OT & HE proof texts via means of mimesis as he would have been taught to do as part of his education.

Jayman said...

Shane:

[T]he differences in the resurrection narritives are not minor differences.

My point is that this does not lead to the conclusion that the resurrection "must be a fabrication for the most part." In order to reach that conclusion you need additional arguments. Your double standard towards Jesus is evident when we look at your John Smith example. In the John Smith example you suggest that some of the witnesses are mistaken but in the case of the evangelists you charge them with fabricating lies.

[Y]our response that the gospels are a product of multiple assestation is still unsound concerning christian doctrine.

I don't care. The resurrection and the inerrancy of the Gospels is not a package deal where I have to accept all or nothing.

the four gospels are the only so called historical documents we have regarding Jesus resurrection. We have no independant confirmation apart from them.

Are you looking for a non-Christian source that affirms that Jesus rose from the dead? If so, don't you think it would be strange for someone to believe that Jesus rose from the dead but to not become a Christian?

And when we consider that the gosepl authors may have had some agenda which may have coloured their writing, we have very good reason to doubt them!

This "dilemma" occurs in nearly all historical inquiry. But, considering that the early Christians were willing to undergo persecution and death for their beliefs, we can be rather sure they were sincere.

Jayman said...

Robert, Sally Ride's "dilemma" is based on a number of false statements.

(1) Paul, Peter, Luke, John, and Josephus (at the very least) were from or lived in Palestine and attest to Jesus' existence. Doherty's interpretation does not follow the ancient interpretations. This is a clear sign that he is misinterpreting the documents. The fact that Mark is the first Gospel written has no bearing on its historicity.

(2) The identities of the authors above is knowable. As Hengel has argued, the names on the Gospels must have appeared quite early for there is no disagreement over the naming and it would be necessary as a practical matter so that the reader could choose the correct scroll (the name being written on the outside of the scroll). There is no serious scholarly movement to date the Gospels after the first century. We do not have the original autograph of many (any?) ancient documents. The manuscript evidence for the NT is unparalleled for ancient documents.

(3) The Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies. The sources you have cited on the genre of the Gospels have failed to persuade scholars (that's why they're published by Prometheus Books or on atheist internet sites and not by university presses). Moreover, Josephus is a disinterested historian who mentions both Jesus and his brother James. I do not reject all other religion's claims to historicity (it's even possible I take the Islamic Hadith more seriously as historical documents than Koran-only Muslims). Arguments for the impossibility of the supernatural are not definitive and therefore it would be begging the question to claim that Jesus could not rise from the dead because miracles never happen.

(4) Luke shows detailed knowledge, especially in Acts, of the Roman world of his day. The Gospel of John was clearly written by someone who knew about Palestinian Judaism and Jerusalem before its destruction by the Romans in AD 70. All of the Gospels were written within living memory of the events they describe. Midrash involves commentary on the Bible so the Gospels are clearly not of this genre.

(5) I am not aware of extant sources from first-century Palestine other than those already mentioned. The argument from silence is weak enough normally, but it is even weaker when (a) you deny the import of the non-silent sources and (b) you can't point to "silent" documents from the time and place in question. Your link appeared to point to writers outside of Palestine.

Jayman said...

Solipsister:

And no one to my knowledge argued that “If discrepancies in the Gospels suggest that the Gospels are fiction then discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of the sinking of the Titanic suggest that those eyewitnesses were also creating fiction.”

No one explicitly made that statement but if we apply Robert's methodology equally to all historical claims that's what we would have to conclude. If the method is absurd when applying it to the Titanic then it should be rejected in all historical study. Applying one standard to Jesus and another standard to other historical claims is hypocritical.

Rather, discrepancies and incoherence and biased eyewitnesses in resurrection accounts (not to mention the writers’ bias) mean that by Jay’s own “method” we can’t say we are certain resurrection is an historical fact.

That's not true since all the sources agree that Jesus rose from the dead. They disagree over more specific details.

OK, but that then bleeds the resurrection accounts of anything but a hippie on a stick (I love that!), an empty cave and some claims about seeing a not-so-dead hippie that may or may not be reliable. That’s not what we’ve been treated to for 2000 years. What we've gotten is hardly “objective historiography,” by any method.

Even if that were our conclusion, I don't see how that would be unobjective. An objective history may not have as many details as we wish it did.

GearHedEd said...

Solipsister said,

"...I'm not trained or anything, but I'd guess that the facticity of "the Titanic was a real boat" is just a smidge higher than "Jesus Christ was a real person." And even if we grant the idea that there was a real individual, isn't "he was supernaturally raised from the dead" a bit of an orange to the Titanic's apple? But even if it's not, then based on this writer's analogy (or Licona's, but maybe they're "literarily dependent" or something) the conclusion should be that the gospel writers, if they were writing history, would say, "We're pretty sure there was a guy named Jesus, but because the eyewitnesses are few and inconsistent, on the basis of eyewitness testimony we aren't sure of the resurrection part, but we'll get back to you if James Cameron drags him back to the surface.""

James Cameron?

I thought resurrecting Jeebus was Mel Gibson's schtick.

Jayman said...

Robert:

If Gospel of Mark is historical and not midrash, then where did the author get his source information.

"[14] Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. [15] 'This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.' These things are related by Papias concerning Mark" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.14-15).

There are not any literary records or nominal historical writings that reference HJ prior to Gospel of Mark that the evangelists could have drawn upon.

Mark drew upon the words of Peter. Luke explicitly states how he wrote his Gospel: "[1] Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. [3] With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, [4] so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (1:1-4). The Gospel of John explicitly states it is based on the words of the beloved disciple: "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" (21:24).

The story was not written by an eyewitness nor is it the set of Logia sayings referenced by Eusebius from Papias’ description of what presbyter John spoke about.

Eusebius clearly links Mark to the Gospel.

If Mark is not midrash, then why does it abound in parallels between the Homeric epics and Old Testament proof texts as shown by MacDonald and Price and Turton.

Midrash involves exegesis of the biblical text. Therefore, even if the Gospels have parallels with the Homeric Epics and quote the Old Testament, that does not make them midrash. The Old Testament texts are cited in the Gospels to show that Jesus actually (not fictionally) fulfilled a prophecy or a prophetic type. I already provided a quote above explaining why the parallels with the Homeric Epics is unimpressive. It is quite easy to come up with parallels between different people so it is not indicative of fiction. For example, I've seen lists showing a number of parallels between President Lincoln and President Kennedy. On Victor Reppert's blog, Timothy McGrew poked fun at Steven Carr by showing that you can find parallels between the Gospels and Winnie the Pooh! There is also a satirical paper that uses parallels to argue that Napoleon Bonaparte was a fictional character. My point is that your method leads to absurd results and should not be applied to any historical claim.

Jayman said...

Robert:

If Thomas Didymus was a real guy and one of Jesus’s buddies, and if the Gospel of Thomas is evidence of his existence and dates to early times, then why are his doctrines so different from those preferred by the proto-Catholics?

I merely cited the Gospel of Thomas to show that Thomas is mentioned in sources outside of the canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas has docetic/gnostic influences and that is why it contains differences from the canonical Gospels.

If, on the other hand, GoT is mid or late 2nd century, then where did those rascally Gnostic Christians get their silly notions? Perhaps oral tradition dating back to JC & TD? Or did they make it up? And if they did make it up, why couldn’t the author of Mark have simply made it up using OT & HE proof texts via means of mimesis as he would have been taught to do as part of his education.

The origins of gnosticism are debateable. I don't think the Gospel of Thomas is pure fiction. It is partially based on the canonical Gospels and partially based on other material. I admit that it is conceivable that Mark could have invented a fictional story but I don't think that hypothesis stands up to scrutiny and it certainly does not explain the rise of Christianity as well as an actual historical figure founding the religion.

GearHedEd said...

Robert B. said,

"Please recall. Nobody wrote of a possible HJ prior to canonical Gospel of Mark. Paul knew nothing of any HJ. Doherty argued convincingly that Paul's Christ was a Platonic transcendent realm spirit being and not an earthly human being."

Couple this with the fact (from the same source, the gospels) that Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, and spent time in Jerusalem according to the texts DURING the time Jesus was said to have been wandering around Judea preaching...

Yet nowhere in his writings does the later Paul ever hint that he met, or knew of, or heard of a real person matching the gospel Jesus.

That's a whopper of a fish story!

GearHedEd said...

Shane: "the four gospels are the only so called historical documents we have regarding Jesus resurrection. We have no independant confirmation apart from them."

Jayman: "Are you looking for a non-Christian source that affirms that Jesus rose from the dead? If so, don't you think it would be strange for someone to believe that Jesus rose from the dead but to not become a Christian?"


Here we have a statement of fact from Shane, and a complete non-answer (two questions!) in reply. The only thing any reasonable observer to this exchange could conclude is that Jayman already knows this, but holds out his bullet-proof 'b'lief' shield in front of himself and says,

"Nuh-uh!"

Jayman said...

GearHedEd, my first question was honest to make sure I understood Shane. The second question merely points out that if someone witnessed the resurrection then they would be a Christian and so we should not expect a non-Christian witness to the resurrection. I didn't deny Shane's statement at all. I just don't see how that helps an anti-resurrection argument.

GearHedEd said...

It's still not an answer.

GearHedEd said...

See Robert's link,

"They should have known."

November 3, 2010 11:38 AM

Jayman said...

GearHedEd:

It's still not an answer.

Absurd demands won't be given a direct answer. His point is that he won't believe X unless someone who does not believe X tells him that X exists. If this is the standard then you will never believe X (whether X is the resurrection or something more mundane). This is the kind of double standard atheists have been employing throughout these comments.

See Robert's link, "They should have known."

(1) Dan Barker asserts that since no sources written during Jesus' lifetime mention Jesus we have reason to doubt his historicity. Barker (a) makes the faulty assumption that since we have no extant written sources from Jesus' lifetime that no such sources ever existed; (b) ignores the fact that writings that covered all of Jesus' ministry would have to be written after his ascension and would replace any incomplete versions written during Jesus' ministry; and (c) implies that this state of affairs is unusual for ancient figures when, in fact, the number of sources mentioning Jesus' existence written within 100 years of his ministry is excellent for an ancient figure.

(2) As can be seen from the dozens of citations I provided earlier, Earl Doherty falsely claims that the NT Epistles do not refer to an historical Jesus. He then complains about 40 years of silence (he ignores the Pauline and Petrine Epistles of course) between Jesus' ministry and the writing of the Gospel of Mark despite the fact that this would be within living memory of Jesus' ministry and that for an ancient figure there is good documentation concerning Jesus' life.

(3) For space reasons, I won't comment on each source but merely note that everyone in the list, except for Josephus, was either not from Palestine or not an historian. The author then tries to cast doubt on Josephus' two references to Jesus but the knowledgeable reader will know he is working against the consensus in both cases. Like Doherty, the author is trying to make the sources fit his theory instead of letting the sources impact his theory.

stuartm said...

Here is an extract from a document that has been carbon-dated to the first century AD.

"Soon after Jesus was crucified his followers started to claim that he had been resurrected. I was intrigued by these claims so I decided to investigate. Apparently the first person to see the risen Jesus was a woman called Mary Magdalene. She told me that she went to the tomb of Jesus two days after his burial. She found the tomb open and then she saw Jesus outside. She spoke to him for several minutes and then he vanished. She told me that she was with another woman called Salome at the time. I tracked down this Salome and she was able to corroborate Mary's account in detail.

Personally I don't know what to make of these claims but everyone that I've spoken to seems sincere. I've questioned people who know Mary and Salome and they say that these women are level-headed and not given to wild fancies."

This is just an extract. The document contains much information, including numerous interviews with other witnesses, details of exactly what they saw, when they saw it, and who they were with. The details have been extensively crosschecked with other witnesses in cases where they were also present.

The author also includes a brief biography of himself and tells us when he wrote his account. Although he is admits to being rather sceptical he tries to consider the case impartially.

Adrian said...

stuartm - is this another fanciful tale like in the OP, or is this for realz?

Adrian said...

stuart's account exposes several things which real historical accounts contain and the gospels conspicuously omit:

* an identified author

* named sources with a discussion of their reliability and where they drew their information

* dates when the events were written

Notice how the gospels lack any of this. All this talk about fitting into the "historical genre" is bullshit - they're clearly religious and not historical and they lack even the most basic elements of genuine histories which were accepted at the time. In fact, they happily write about events which could not possibly have been witnessed yet show no signs that these descriptions are any different than any other element which should indicate that historical accuracy wasn't even a minor consideration.

This should be front-and-centre in any discussion but I think bible study is so mired in the misguided attempt to justify the gospels rather than learn about history that these aren't even mentioned.

Jayman said...

Tyro, your list of things that "real historical accounts" contain is simply not true. For example, the textbook Chronicles of the Crusades: Eye-witness accounts of the wars between Christianity and Islam quotes the following anonymous sources: Gesta Francorum, De exugnatione Lyxbonensi, Historia de Expeditione Frederici Imperatoris, The Deeds of Innocent III, and Le Livre des Fais du bon Messire Jehan le Maingre. dit Bouciquat.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Hello Friends and Readers:

Rationality means using reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge.

In response to assertions of an HJ, please read Robert M. Price's book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

;its a good read and makes a reasonable case that the Gospels are not reliable as historical documents.

Also see Paul Jacobson's Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus at the Case Against Faith site which informs how Strobel's work fails to secure historicity of the Christian god-man.

Highly Recommended Jacobson's site also has an interestng document describing historical standards by which to judge Gospel historicity.

This is interesting. Whenever the topic of HJ vs MJ arises, almost invariably, proponents of HJ will point to Gal 1:18-19 & 2:1's use of the word again (palin) to rebutt Doherty's claim that Paul did not know about an HJ. Yahoo jesusmysteries group user jacobjonesiv points out in msg 54254 and also in msg 54288 that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian had 1:18-19 or (palin) in their Galiatians. This is good evidence that the proto Catholics doctored the text for their doctrinal purposes of opposing Marcion's cult. Additionally the same author shows where the proto-Catholic redactors of 1 Cor 15:3-11 may have gotten their ideas subsequently interpolated into the text. These ideas help support Doherty's case in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

Many Thanks to everybody. Have a fun day.

Unknown said...

Hello Readers:

Rationality means using reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge.

In response to assertions of an HJ, please read Robert M. Price's book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

;its a good read and makes a reasonable case that the Gospels are not reliable as historical documents.

Also see Paul Jacobson's Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus at the Case Against Faith site which informs how Strobel's work fails to secure historicity of the Christian god-man.

Highly Recommended Jacobson's site also has an interestng document describing historical standards by which to judge Gospel historicity.

This is interesting. Whenever the topic of HJ vs MJ arises, almost invariably, proponents of HJ will point to Gal 1:18-19 & 2:1's use of the word again (palin) to rebutt Doherty's claim that Paul did not know about an HJ. Yahoo jesusmysteries group user jacobjonesiv points out in msg 54254 and also in msg 54288 that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian had 1:18-19 or (palin) in their Galiatians. This is good evidence that the proto Catholics doctored the text for their doctrinal purposes of opposing Marcion's cult. Additionally the same author shows where the proto-Catholic redactors of 1 Cor 15:3-11 may have gotten their ideas subsequently interpolated into the text. These ideas help support Doherty's case in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man.

Many Thanks.

Unknown said...

Richard Carrier in Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False? writes in rebuttal to J.P. Holding about historical standards employed by early Christians.

John uses the same vocabulary as Paul when he tells Christians to "test" prophetic spirits by seeing whether they promote or stifle love. Indeed, his test is absurdly question-begging: "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God, but is the spirit of the Antichrist" (1 John 4:1-3). As standards of inquiry go, this hits rock bottom. The only further test subsequently offered is the criterion of whether the spirit promotes love or worldly desires (1 John 4:4-5:13), since only the former comes from God. It is impossible to accept any of these tests as evidence today. Whether someone in a prophetic trance confesses Christ and advocates love has no bearing at all on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. Indeed, the mere fact that these tests were more than sufficient for Christian converts proves exactly the opposite of Holding's point: they were satisfied with far, far less than anything we would call "irrefutable" evidence.

What Paul and early Church leaders used for epistemology was faith. They sought to 'proves' the truth by appealing to the efficacy of apostolic miracle-working, to subjective revelation, to scripture, and to his upstanding behavior or 'suffering' as proof of his sincerity. Link to Carrier's article

Adrian said...

Jayman - don't fool yourself. Any anonymous accounts and *especially* any account which doesn't discuss sources will be treated with a *high* degree of scepticism. When you combine that with all the magic and fantasy of the gospels and you have a winning formula for dismissing the entire account.

Unknown said...

@Jayman have a look at the articles linked to the Yahoo Jesusmysteries group. Jake is a smart guy. He should be able to put up a lively defense of his position that Gal 1:18-19 are interpolations based upon absence of relevant info re: Paul's alleged 1st visit to Jerusalem in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Doherty posts there sometimes as does Peter Gandy (coauthor with Tim Freke of Jesus Mysteries)

Steven Carr said...

'On Victor Reppert's blog, Timothy McGrew poked fun at Steven Carr by showing that you can find parallels between the Gospels and Winnie the Pooh! '

Did he?

Shows you how desperate he is when he cannot refute real arguments and has to make up strawmen.

Mind you,McGrew may well have a point.

I have to admit the force of McGrew's arguments.

Winnie the Pooh is, of course, fictional,which is one really good parallel between Pooh and the Gospels.

Doesn't Pooh fly into the sky holding a balloon?

Just like Jesus allegedly flew into the sky(but without a balloon)?

There's one parallel for you right there.


And Winnie the Pooh books are full of talking animals,just like 2 Peter mentions a talking donkey.

McGrew really is on to something.

He has proved that the New Testament is just as realistic as Winnie the Pooh.



Is there word for word copying between Pooh books and the Gospels such as you can find in Miracles and the Book of Mormon where the Gospel miracle stories are shown by photographic documented evidence to be rip-offs of Old Testament miracle stories?

Will Jayman ever produce a Christian in the first century who put his name on a document saying he had heard of Judas?

Jayman,put up or shut up.

You've had your chance , and you blew it.

Simply produce the document where a Christian in the first century names himself as having heard of Judas.

Anonymous unprovenanced works which plagiarise each other and the Old Testament do not count.

Just produce ONE Christian who named himself as seeing Judas.

Steven Carr said...

Jayman says historians use Gesta Francorum.

Jayman, put up or shut up!


Can Jayman name ONE historian who thinks this really happened,as detailed in the Gesta Francorum?

'There was a certain pilgrim of our army, whose name was Peter, to whom before we entered the city St. Andrew, the apostle, appeared and said: "What art thou doing, good man?"

Peter answered, "Who art thou?"

The apostle said to him: "I am St. Andrew, the apostle.'

Jayman, put up or shut up!

Jayman claims Gesta Francorum is used by historians,although it is anonymous.

Name ONE historian who thinks this visit by St.Andrew happened.

Just ONE.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN
That's not true since all the sources agree that Jesus rose from the dead. They disagree over more specific details.

CARR

'Disagree over more specific details'.

You have to admire the bravery of somebody who can say things like that....

Just like the crooked witnesses in Mark 14 agreed that Jesus said 'Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days'. They disagreed over more specific details.

Even Christians know that if you are forced to change your story because of the assive holes in the original version, that does not make your story convincing.

It leaves you having to say that the rewrites of the story were 'disagreements over details.'

And even the author of 'Mark' knew people were discredited if 'their testimony did not agree' (Mark 14)


Mark 'forgot' to mention that this tomb was guarded.

Allegedly, Christians had been hammered for 30 years by charges of grave-robbing and the first Novel forgot to include ANY defense against such charges.

So 'Matthew' quickly changed the story.

Obviously, there had been no empty tomb or else surely even Christians would not have been so dumb that it took them *over 30 years* to think up a convincing story to explain why no grave-robbing had happened.

Even the dumbest Christian, given 30 years to think of something, will come up with a story which explains why no grave-robbing happened.



And yet these lies about guards only surfaced after the first Novel said the body was left lying around for followers of Jesus to get at.

Steven Carr said...

JAYMAN

'The Gospel of John was clearly written by someone who knew about Palestinian Judaism and Jerusalem before its destruction by the Romans in AD 70.'

CARR
Translation.

The anonymous Gospel mentions places like Arimathea which nobody has been able to find,along with other places nobody can trace.

And mentions people that not even Christians mentioned when writing to each other.

Nobody can find any trace of Joseph of Arimathea.

Not even Acts has any record of his ever existing.

As soon as there is a public church with the possibility of public records, almost the entire cast of Gospel characters vanish into thin air, and the Romans start to be baffled by even knowing who Jesus was.

Unknown said...

1) When infidels insist the Bible must be held to a rigorous standard of proof they are justified because doing otherwise separates Christianity's components from the context of religious fanaticism. Robert G Ingersoll wrote:

The church, impotent and malicious, regrets, not the abuse, but the loss of her power, and seeks to hold by falsehood what she gained by cruelty and force, by fire and fear. Christianity cannot live in peace with any other form of faith. If that religion be true, there is but one savior, one inspired book, and but one little narrow grass-grown path that leads to heaven. Such a religion is necessarily uncompromising, unreasoning, aggressive and insolent. Christianity has held all other creeds and forms in infinite contempt, divided the world into enemies and friends, and verified the awful declaration of its founder -- a declaration that wet with blood the sword he came to bring, and made the horizon of a thousand years lurid with the fagots' flames.

Unknown said...

2) Robert G Ingersoll continued

Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see. Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the only torch in Nature's night. These claims are so at variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.

stuartm said...

Thanks Tyro. I hope no one objected to a bit of facetiousness.

shane said...

Jayman.

So in other words, you think that the proposition of the resurrection being a fact, and the inerrancy of the gospels do not have to be accepted together?.... Thats fine!
But dont you realize that this outstanding claim of Jesus resurrection is an unreasonable belief by any standard of human knowledge...... whether it be the scientific method?, history, or just plain common sense?

This is the precise reason that christians claim that the bible is the word of God (infallible in every respect), this was the only way they could back up such ridiculous claims!

Even if you dont want to except this, then at least know that just because the gospel authors may all at least "agree" on Jesus resurrecting from the dead - this is not automatically evidence of a true historical event.
It could just as well be evidence of a unanimously believed fiction!

shane said...

Jayman.

Remember, there is no claim in any of the gospels that anyone really witnessed Jesus actually resurrecting. All there is is apparent claims of "seeing" or "speaking" to Jesus after His suppossed death!

Unknown said...

Hello friends: I still think its irrational to believe that a dead guy was magically brought back to life even if there once lived a Jewish religious guru named Jesus who ended up on the wrong end of a crucifix. My belief is partly supported by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Does The Claim of Jesus' Resurrection Prevail Under the Federal Rules of Evidence? by Edward Tabash

Even in common law,the best evidence rule would preclude submission of the Gospel accounts as testimony because he canonical Gospels are amalgams of interpolations, redactions, editorial revisions and rewritings and thus fail the original or reliable duplicate of any writing criteria.

When Christians complain that skeptics subject their religious stories to different evidentiary standards for historicity, they presume that extraordinary supernatural claims are of the same category as mundane assertions about political or military figures. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence to be even considered as possibly true. But assigning rational status to the Gospel claims of Jesus' resurrection is an even more tenuous endeavor because truth can only occur in contradistinction to falsity. Gospel resurrection claims are non-cognitive and can't be falsified because there is no associated empirical component, and thus there is no possibility they can be true.

shane said...

Robert Bumbalough backs up what I was saying previously.
These are the reasons christians must claim the bible as the divinely inspired word of God, otherwise they have no leg to stand on!
And the problem for them is that the scriptures lend enough evidence of their own to discredit divine inspiration!

Joseph said...

I'm sure you realize historians don't accept fantastic claims associated with historical figures (they tend to reject them based purely on incredulity). If someone said we have as much evidence supporting the existence of Jesus as compared to someone like Alexander the Great, I probably wouldn't argue that point very forcefully (even though it might be somewhat arguable, it's a close enough question that I don't see much point in debating about it). However, while we all acknowledge Alexander existed, we still don't believe he was the son of Zeus, incarnated when his mother had a dream that a thunderbolt immersed her body. We certainly have no more substantiation for this myth compared to the virgin birth narrative of Jesus. With Alexander we're left taking his mothers (Olympia's) word for it, and with Jesus we have to take Mary's word for it (since Joseph quickly disappears from the narrative). With Alexander we have the tale of an Egyptian oracle, his mothers alleged claims, as recorded by his personal historian. With Jesus the evidence is very similar (and we're given these reports by his followers, who we can reasonably say "might" have had motivation to embellish the story).

The way I see it is the story probably developed over time. Just looking at the differences between Mark and Matthew this seems obvious enough; particularly given the social context. While we're told the disciples met a horrible fate for defending their faith, the only people we have even a little bit of evidence on (in terms of their fate) is Peter and James (and to a lesser extent Paul). There's numerous different accounts concerning all the other disciples (and any intellectually honest scholar, even one theologically committed to the text, has to admit this). Josephus explains the trial of James was grossly unfair (angering even the Jewish people in then Roman Palestine). Peter (and perhaps Paul) were probably killed (at least according to the best traditions we have) during the persecution of Christians under Nero. So it's doubtful any of these individuals had a chance to recant (and in the case of Peter and Paul, it's doubtful they even had a trial).

I personally just don't see how this can be enough evidence for a historian to hang his hat on? IMHO this requires "faith" (in the true meaning of the word). Minimal facts (as you say) might be the Markan version of the story (but the earliest and most reliable manuscripts we have omit the resurrection, and stop at the empty tomb claim). We're left with two competing (and mutually exclusive) claims. Palestinian Jews (who say the followers of Jesus stole his body) and the gospel authors

GearHedEd said...

Steven Carr said,

"...Nobody can find any trace of Joseph of Arimathea."

Then where did the runes carved into the living rock of Caerbannog come from?

"Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Arimathea: 'He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the Holy Grail in the Castle of Aaargh."

Unknown said...

I think Jayman misinterpreted what George A. Wells wrote in “The Jesus Myth” as capitulating belief change from MJ to HJ equivalent to the Gospel Christ of Faith. This is not true. Wells has always been an advocate of a Legendary Jesus based on a historical living man. Wells' research caused him to speculate LJ was believed by Paul to have lived in an unspecified legendary past or in the Maccabean period. Wells wrote favorably of Alvar EllegĂ„rd's book Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ in the same essay linked below.

Wells wrote: I have treated both the Galilean and the Cynic elements less skeptically in The Jesus Myth, allowing that they may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents).....The strength of Freke and Gandy's account lies in bringing out the pagan parallels, particularly in the mystery religions, to earliest Christianity. They do not, however, accept that pagan motifs have been grafted onto a Jesus who was at least believed to have existed historically, but insist that Paul regarded Christ as 'a timeless mythical figure'. Doherty likewise holds that Paul speaks of Jesus 'in exclusively mythological terms'. I have never -- in spite of what some of my critics have alleged -- subscribed to such a view: ~ George Albert Wells from Earliest Christianity (1999)

Unknown said...

1) I have revised my main argument. The question at issue: Is it rational for a non-Christian to disbelieve the claim that Jesus was supernaturally brought back to life after being dead even though other non-Christians find hitherto unknown naturalistic explications of the Gospel stories? I am arguing that it is irrational for a non-Christian to believe that Jesus probably resurrected. To support that, a theory of truth is needed. In my first argument, I suggested Coherency Theory. The user acting as the Christian apologist rejected that because he claimed CT is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for truth. Since Coherency requires a set of beliefs to be mutually agreeable in support of a hypothesis, The user's apologetic stance is fatal to Faith that the canonical Gospels validate the claim of Jesus' resurrection because the Gospels are incoherent relative to one another. Later I suggested that apologetical user was special pleading for acceptance of the canonical Gospels via a form of foundationalism. He replied that he did not argue for foundationalism. So in order to avoid use of Coherency and Foundationalism, an alternative theory of truth, foundherentismcan be employed to evaluate the claim that believers are justified in believing the canonical Gospels are historical documents. The discoverer of foundherentism is Susan Haack. Her book is Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology

Unknown said...

2) Foundherentism's twofold view of justification stipulates what counts as strong supportive evidence for a belief is validated by a dual processes of explication of criteria of evidence and what is the connection between a belief's being well supported by good evidence an the likelihood of it being true. To say that a person is justified in some belief is to make a favorable appraisal of his epistemic state. So the task of explication here calls for a descriptive account of an evaluative concept...Our criteria of justification...are the standards by which we judge the likelihood that a belief is true; they are what we take to be indications of truth. Another way in which a theory of justification may be inadequate, then, is that the criteria it offers are such that no connection can be made between a beleif's being justified, by those criteria and the likelihood that things are as it says. (Haack, 1, 12)

The Christian apologist bears a burden of proof to validate the claim that the Canonical Gospels are historically reliable & indicate Jesus resurrected. Since modern people can know nothing of ancient history with certainty, a historical inquirer must seek to form arguments to the best explanation. That is assisted by demonstrating a rational Beysian probability that the Canonical Gospels are most likely not true as historical accounts. It is required to determine the prior probability of that hypothesis given the evidence we do have using the Foundherentism Theory of truth.

Unknown said...

3)Christian apologists argue that modern people should apply ancient standards of accuracy related to chronicling events rather than much more rigorous standards of modern historical practice such that the criteria for acceptance of the canonical Gospels as true is to believe by faith they are true. However, knowledge can't be obtained by faith. Consequently, there

cannot be a relational connection consisting of knowledge between justifying a belief by faith and the likelihood that it is true.

My Bayes Theorem argument is expressed as

P(H|S)={P(S|H)*P(H)}/P(S)}

where for present purposes

P(H) is the prior probability of the Gospels being historically acurate.

P(S) is the prior probability of the non-Christian silence regarding Jesus or the rise of Christianity in the first century.

P(S|H) is the conditional probability of the non-Christian silence given historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.

P(H|S) is the conditional probability of historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts given the non-Christian silence regarding Jesus or the rise of

Christianity in the first century.

No non-Christian testimony for Jesus or the rise of Christianity can be reliably counted upon to support the hypothesis that the Gospels are historically

accurate. See Non-Christian Testimony and Philo of Alexandria and Seneca and the Stoics

Unknown said...

4) Consider Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan showed he knew nothing of Jesus or Christianity for he had to torture the female slaves to

obtain information that he termed “excessive superstition”. Yet the Christian story says that the religion spread quickly and widely throughout the regions

of the eastern Mediterranean. If that were true, sophisticated elite ruling class officials would be expected to be acquainted with the religion especially in

light of the Ignatian story. This fact as well as the other unexplainable silences regarding Jesus, Paul, and the alleged rapid spread of Christianity

contradicts the Gospel and Acts stories. And since all religions are known to be based on fictional stories and since it is very easy to make up fictional

stories and since form criticism identifies the Gospel stories as compliant with the archtypical form of widespread redeeming hero mythcial savior deities

or demigods, then it is very likely the Gospel stories are fictional midrash, and that means the P(H) is very small.

P(S) however is very large because if the stories are indeed fictional midrash constituting contents of a mystery religion that was secret and only

revealed to initiates, then it is to be expected that ancient chroniclers of then current events would not write about Christianity even though they were

Johnny on the Spot and had every opportunity and motivation to write about it.

Unknown said...

5) However, P(S|H) would be very small because if a Demi God or Divine being were striding about doing supernatural miracles in front of thousands,

then the chroniclers should have and would have known and subsequently written about it. Its not every day that some Jewish Rabbi resurrects stinking

rotting corpses or that Zombies rise from their graves an go ambling about in Jerusalem.

Then since P(S) is very large, and P(H) and P(S|H) are very small, P(H|S) is also very small. Thus it is rational to think the Gospel stories not historically

accurate and to think them fictional midrash for a small unobtrusive mystery cult. This means asserting the Gospels accounts historically accurate or

reliable is an extraordinary claim. To validate it, extraordinary evidence is needed. No such evidence is available. Only ordinary evidence can be

mustered to support the apologetic case. The ordinary evidence available is not very good. So I think an exegetical inquirer seeking to make a case for

Christianity or historical reliability of the Gospels has a long row to hoe.

The forgoing constitutes and argument to the best explanation because it has good scope and parsimony with the known facts. To rebut this, an

apologist should provide evidence of non-Christian testimony for Jesus, Paul, and the rise of Christianity. However the usual suspects have been dispatched. Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus

Unknown said...

6) And the internal evidence of the New Testament documents fails for reasons Doherty, Price, Wells, Freke, Gandy, Murdock, Zindler and others have

written upon in their books.

The facts alleged to support historicity and form a body of knowledge explicating how those fact cause the historical reliability of the NT Gospels cannot sustain critical examination. Thus there cannot be a rational probability that Jesus resurrected if the case for his existence is so weak. It is speculative that there may have been a historical Jesus who was associated with the Q1 Kingdom of God preaching movement, but if so he would have more likely resembled a Hellenistic Cynic Sage type as George A. Wells thinks, but he would not have been the guy described in Gospel of Mark and that would be fatal for any form of Christianity dependent upon the Gospel Jesus character.

Unknown said...

That's my revised main argument in support of John Loftus' original post. I'm not arguing for a mythical Jesus or that Jesus never existed. I am arguing that an actual probability of the canonical Gospels being believable as historical documents is very small and that the silence of non-Christian chroniclers of then current events to be silent about Jesus and Christianity is high. This means its irrational to believe resurrection stories because the conditional probability of historical accuracy given silence of disinterested chroniclers is less than .5

Believers will disagree. That's ok. I don't care what they believe. If they worship 20 gods or no gods at all, it neither harms me or costs me.