Now that we’ve established that there is no reasonable way that Jesus could have survived the crucifixion, let’s move on to the next two points: His burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the discovery of the empty tomb on Sunday morning.This is relatively uncontroversial and seems accepted by most scholars. However, given that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, some have claimed that it is implausible that one of those who voted to condemn Jesus would have buried Him honourably in his own tomb, and this sounds reasonable on the surface. But the Apostle Luke foresaw this difficulty and his report of the burial records that Joseph did not “consented to their decision and action” (Luke 23: 50-53). Indeed, William Lane Craig claims that, according to John A. T. Robinson, late Cambridge University New Testament Scholar, the honourable burial of Jesus is one of the earliest (hence not open to legendary embellishment due to the passage of time) and best-attested facts about the historical Jesus (in Strobel, 1998, p283).
That leads us to the empty tomb. Craig goes on to list a series of arguments in favour of the empty tomb. In the interests of brevity I’ll only mention a couple, but all can be found in Strobel’s The Case for Christ. One of the most interesting to me is the discovery of the tomb by women. In the ancient world, women were poorly thought of, and it would have been embarrassing for the disciples to admit that it was women, not the disciples, who discovered the tomb, and this seems like one of those things that would have been altered or covered up if the account was legendary (in fact, this and other embarrassing details are often used to establish the authenticity of the Gospels). Also, the earliest Jewish writings confirm the historicity of the empty tomb. Nobody at the time was claiming that the tomb was not empty – what they did was posit different ideas about why. The guards fell asleep and the disciples stole the body is the answer given at the time (Matt 28:12-15). Another, more modern objection to the empty tomb that surfaced in 1907 is that the women went to the wrong tomb. However, if this was the case, don’t you think the Jewish authorities, who certainly knew where He was buried, would have simply pointed that out when the disciples began announcing His resurrection? The dialogue would have gone something like this: “Jesus is risen!”, “No he’s not. There’s his tomb!” Doesn’t seem to hold much explanatory power, does it?
More could be said on this topic, and the interested reader is again referred to Strobel’s book, as well as The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona for an extremely thorough review of these issues. Stay tuned for Part 4 of How Do We Know – the Post-Mortem Appearances!
39 comments:
In what world is the discovery of the empty tomb "relatively uncontroversial?"
According to Habermas, only 75% of the scholars accepted the historicity of the empty tomb. Moreover, Habermas classified 75% of the journals that he surveyed as "moderate conservative Christian." That would suggest to me that acceptance of the empty tomb is limited by and large, if not almost exclusively, to Christians who fall somewhere on in the conservative spectrum.
As far as the burial narrative goes, I have heard Craig and Habermas claim only that most scholars accept that Jesus was buried. I have never heard them claim that that all the details of the Gospel narratives are generally accepted. I personally have read several scholars who believe that Jesus' body was likely thrown into a common grave as would have been the Roman's common practice with executed criminals. In that case, the exact location of Jesus' body might not have been known at all.
Hey Vinny, nice to have someone new to the blog weigh in. Can I ask what reasons you have for disbelieving the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus?
I would first prefer to discuss your reasons for believing that the burial and empty tomb narratives are “relatively uncontroversial.” I don’t think that Craig and Habermas claim the same scholarly consensus that you are claiming.
I actually meant the burial is relatively uncontroversial, not necessarily the empty tomb, so that’s my bad. Regardless, let’s look at Craig’s comments. In addition to the comments he made to Strobel in The Case for Christ (see post above), in his debate with Bart Ehrman on this very topic in 2006 (a full transcript can be found on Craig’s website, www.reasonablefaith.org) he makes the same claim. He differentiates between the evidence and the explanation of the evidence because “the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars.” He goes on to list two reasons (multiple independent attestations, and Joseph of Arimathea unlikely to be a Christian invention) then says: “For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.” Regarding the empty tomb, he says: “in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, ‘By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.’ ” It isn’t clear from Ehrman’s response if he agrees with the claim or not (he seems to make statements either way) but he certainly provides no arguments against it.
Regarding Habermas, I didn’t say he made the same claim as Craig, I just referred to him as a source of more in-depth information on this topic. Since you raised the question though...he says, in his article Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?, that from scholars he surveyed “approximately 75% favor one or more...arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.” Therefore, I think the claim that these scholars support the view stated is solid.
Even if it’s not, even if the majority of scholars don’t agree, that’s somewhat irrelevant. Just saying ‘most people don’t agree with you’ does not address the issues themselves. So, again, I’d love to hear your reasons for disbelieving the Gospel accounts.
I think that is a very important point, differentiating between actual evidence and the explanation of evidence.
There are lots of theories floating around, no Christian denies this. Some of them are very good, actually. However they are all theories of non-existent "evidence" or contrasts with other cases - but do not look directly at the facts we have from this case.
Dominic Crossan even completely ignored the burial and jumped straight to reasoning for the lack of body by saying it was eaten by dogs... while still on the cross. Pretty morbid. My point is, we know that there are alternate theories. We would be poor students and pitiful disciples not to stare them down squarely in each case in order to find the truth - wherever it may lead.
Other martyrs had tombs which were often venerated. Simply because Romans threw some bodies in mass graves does not validate that they threw them all in mass graves. They did not. So faced with evidence that we actually have in this case, we must throw that theory out as wild speculation.
One more thing is not often pointed out: Jesus' entombment "was the first of a two-stage burial; had his body still been in a tomb somewhere, someone would sooner or later have had to collect the bones and put them in an ossuary, and the game would have been up." (Wright, p.147, The Challenge of Jesus)
Robin,
You are quite right that we must look at actual evidence.
The actual evidence we have for Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea is stories that were derived from unknown sources that were recorded decades after the events in the question by unknown individuals. It simply is not terribly strong evidence.
Strong or not it is the evidence that is actually available.
And I personally think it is strong, but that is a discussion on the veracity and authorship of the Gospels, which I am willing to get into, but is pointless because the arguments are already out there - I suggest reading just more than the arguments against* - not saying that you, Vinny, do or should, I assume you have. But to write the Gospels off as simply spurious is, well, not good scholarship. It just isn't that simple.
*May I strongly suggest Tom Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and that no one write it off because Wright happens to believe that it's true? You don't gloss over Einstein because He thought Unification Theory tenable.
Robin,
You are quite right that the gospel story is actual evidence. So now we look for an explanation for the evidence. What explains this story being told in this way? One of the explanations is that things happened in exactly the way that the story relates. On the other hand, there are many other possible explanations as well such as the story developing over time as it was passed along orally.
See, the thing is, if it were for anything else, it would be considered incontrovertible. That Caesar crossed the Rubicon is not a contested piece of history (usually) but it comes from highly suspect sources (wiki it, you will be surprised) - it simply doesn't have the religious overtones to it... or does it? No one in the 1st Century (or now, really except some magazine writers I could think to name) writes anything without a goal in mind. So that fact that some "historical narrative" seems to have an underlying spiritual drive to should not for any reason be cause of dismissal. Everything had a religious or political under/overtone. And the Gospels are not shy about theirs. (My, how post-modern I've become ;P ) Ergo, we have lots of debate about something that we wouldn't have otherwise.
Secondly, we do not need to explain evidence in the sense that we would if it did not speak for itself. For instance, we look for explanation of why and how a bullet got to the ground at a specific spot at a specific time. We do not however wonder what produced the bullet - obviously its a gun. (what gun, yes, yes, quit being picky) But we need not do this in the case of multiply attested eyewitness accounts. And that is what they are - whether some of them were handed down orally or not (as Luke and Mark clearly were and have no qualms in saying so - Luke comes right out with it, first paragraph - because he is just reporting the truth - and Mark bears every evidence of having come down from Peter firsthand - it is even likely that Mark was actually with Peter and Jesus in several of the cases, personally.
If there was a "Q" (and there may have been; I'm on the fence on this for two reasons that I won't get into here) then it is very likely that it was Matthew who actually penned the "Q" writings that Mark takes some of his accounts from - for no other reason than a tax collector may have been one of the few literate people in the group and used to writing for government likely kept it up regularly. Also that Matthew gleans from Mark in many cases because Peter was first hand to things Matthew was not privy to.
Either way, it matters little because... thats right, we don't have a copy of it so it cannot be counted as evidence as it is not there. They throw out murder cases without a body, you know.
C. Behan McCullagh in his book, "Justifying Historical Discriptions" lists 7 criteria for testing a historical hypothesis. I won't list all of them, they get tedious, but number 7 is that 'it must exceed its rivals in fulfilling criteria 2-6. By filling in all the available details, facts, evidence, known laws of nature, etc, if said hypothesis fills in a large number of facts and conforms to all data wholistically then it is likely to be true. No matter what conclusion that may imply to you, personally, as a historian
There is deep stuff here that cannot be brought out in a blog. Needless to say, Vinny, and any others with doubts, good! You should have them! But to think that Christians are completely mindless idiots with shoddy scholarship who simply overlook facts we don't like or are frightening to our little world, is a terrible misconception and one that will hinder your growth much more than it will ours.
(Besides, I can think of about 30+ fairly conceivable explanations even past Ehrman - who I find to be very creative - but that still do not fit enough facts, on a holistic, universal level, no matter how unbelievable, to make me think otherwise. The proof simply lies in the evidence we have. (which by the way, the earliest evidence for the crucified death and burial of Christ is in 1 Corinthians, just a few years, likely in 57(?) and that is really early for mythology to have crept in, esp in a society which lived by keeping oral traditions. But even then, the belief seems to be fairly rooted in the very earliest of writings and we have no proto-Christianity that could have evolved into what we have now. It claims a secure belief in the dead, raised and exalted Christ.
Sorry, these thoughts have just rambled out. I might clean them up in a real post.
sorry for the ridiculous number of misspellings and (even wrong words?) grammar mistakes. Its midnight and i gotta go to bed!
Robin:
There is almost nothing in ancient history that can be considered incontrovertible.
As I understand it, evidence for Caesar crossing the Rubicon comes from contemporaneous writings both by Caesar himself and Cicero. We also have coins and inscriptions attesting to the fact that Caesar came to power at the time he reports.
An eyewitness account is an account given by an eyewitness. If Mark recorded what Peter told him, it was a second-hand account. If the stories were passed by oral tradition by years before they were recorded, then they are fifth-hand accounts or twentieth-hand accounts as the case may be.
I note that McCullagh’s criteria include “known laws of nature.” Wouldn’t that be a strike against any explanation that required supernatural miracles? Wouldn’t things like the common Roman practice for disposing of the corpses of executed criminals be one of the things that McCullagh would consider?
I agree that 1 Corinthians is the earliest evidence for the death and burial, however it does not include Joseph of Arimithea and does not preclude a common criminals' grave.
Vinny, if Mark recorded what Peter told him, and Peter was an eyewitness then Mark’s report contains eyewitness testimony – it might be second-hand because Peter didn’t write it, but you’ve got to do better than that...you’ve actually got to show that there is something wrong with it. Just making the claim that decades had passed is insufficient. If I were to interview Holocaust survivors today, 60 years after the events, you would have some justification in wondering how good their memories were, but you would have to actually prove that they were recalling events that didn’t happen, not just assert that age has dulled or altered their memories. If their recollections were all we had left we could still build an accurate picture of the events. There might be some discrepancies, but the core facts would all be present and their testimonies would all be considered historically valid.
Also, when you mention the laws of nature, you and Robin are blurring the lines between evidence and explanation. We haven’t gotten to the explanation yet, and I think we should leave that discussion until I’ve had a chance to post on that (Part 6 of the series). Since I’ve got about 100 term papers on my desk waiting to be graded, that might take a week or so, so please bear with me, but it will be there eventually! There is nothing unnatural about a body being buried or that tomb being found empty three days later. It’s the “why” and “how” of the empty tomb that takes us there, and I will be discussing these things.
P.S. Vinny – you’ve inspired me to do a series of posts on the dates and authorship of the Gospels. Thanks! They’ll be up after we finish off the “How do we Know” series. Stay tuned!
See the latest post.
I have dinner with my ninety-two year old mother once a week and I know that age and time have shaped her memories of events that occurred sixty years ago. Based on my knowledge of family history, I am confident that her memories are primarily rooted in actual events; however, I know that she has conflated the details of various events that happened at different times and places. I also suspect that some of the things she remembers happening to her may have in fact happened to someone else in her family.
If I were to interview holocaust survivors about events that occurred sixty years ago, I would be a fool to think anything other than that age and time had altered their memories. I would have little doubt that their accounts reflected their current understanding of what had happened to them, but I would not deem them historically accurate without checking them against any available records and other accounts of the events.
You speak as if I am under some obligation to take the writings of the New Testament at face value until I can prove them false. By your logic, I would have to accept the veracity of the stories in the Koran, the book of Mormon, the BagVagita, the Urantia Book, and every other religious text until I could prove that there was something wrong with them. As a method of historical inquiry, this makes no sense.
As a matter of historical methodology, my default position with regard to Mark is agnosticism. On its surface, it is a story about a man named Jesus. I cannot say anything more about it without the answers to many other questions. Who wrote it? Why did he write it? How did the writer understand the story and how did he intend it to be understood? Did he think it was historical fact? How did he come by the story? What were his sources? Can the story be corroborated? As I investigate these questions, I may be able to make some statements about the work, although there will always be some uncertainty. On the other hand, I may come to the conclusion, as historians of ancient times often do, that the sources are simply not solid enough to say anything with any real confidence.
As I said, there might be some discrepancies between different holocaust survivors about some details, but that such an event happened, and that they were a part of it, that a place named Auschwitz existed – these we could be confident in believing. Such is the case in the Gospels - the core details are affirmed by all.
And yes, I believe we are obliged to take ancient writings at face value unless we can prove otherwise. That’s how ancient history is done. In some cases all we have is a few fragments of text or pieces of pottery upon which to base our understandings of historical events (see comments by Bruce below). If we took your view, and threw out evidence until it has been proven true (how can you do that, by the way? What kind of evidence would you accept?) then we would know very little about the ancient world! And yes, that means we have to take the Koran etc at face value. That’s why historians study their claim and assess their worth.
Regarding the Gospels, Luke is the author of both the Gospel of his name and the book of Acts. Turek and Geisler show that he recorded 84 historical facts that have been independently verified. Some of these are so inconsequential one wonders why he recorded them, like the depth of the water at a certain harbour at a certain time of the year. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy… this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians… Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness”. A.N. Sherwin-White, a historian of Rome, makes a similar claim about Acts: “Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted”. Can we really believe that he was so thorough as to get the depth of the harbour right, and mess up something like Christ’s burial and the empty tomb? There seems no fair reason to do so.
With regards to the New Testament as a whole, F.F. Bruce makes this claim: “The works of several ancient authors are preserved to us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission… In contrast… the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.” Indeed, in his survey of ancient literature, McDowell shows that there exist about 25,000 portions of the New Testament in various languages, but only 643 of Homer’s Iliad, which discusses the city of Troy (which was found where Homer said it would be). Herodotus, 8 copies; Plato, 7 copies (and 1300 years has passed between his life and the earliest copy of his work- are you sceptical of what those records conatin?) Tacitus, 20 copies. Montgomery says “to be sceptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New testament.”
So I ask you, Vinny, what kind of evidence for the empty tomb would you accept? And remember, we are still discussing the evidence, not the explanation!
Where in the world did you get the idea that historians take ancient writings at face value? Since you referred to A.N. Sherwin-White, let me quote something he said: “Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius.” Historians challenge everything and question everything. I would note that while Sherwin-White does credit the author of Luke with getting historical details right, he considers the gospels and Act “propaganda.”
I wonder why people would think that... ?
Propaganda [prop-uh-gan-duh]
-noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliverately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
(emphasis added of course)
now:
LUKE 1:1-4
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servant of the word, I too decided, after investigating every carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."
Luke tells us himself that it is his purpose to "deliberately spread information to help a person/group/movement." The idea that propaganda is all evil produced by the religious/war machine and must be questioned is a most recent development of postmodern thought - which in and of itself is a good and necessary check for the arrogant mindset of the modernist movement, as N.T. Wright points out. But to assume that just because someone sets out to propagate information, ideas, or even beliefs, does not necessarily mean that information, those ideas or beliefs are wrong.
The postmodern "hermeneutic of suspicion" may point out the subjectivity of everything, but it cannot deny objective truth - or we would have no definitions for anything and all discussion (indeed the entire world around us) breaks down into meaningless, illogical, unfounded, "well, whats true for you isn't necessarily true for me." We must move through the wispy vagueness of postmodern thought, as it moved through the arrogance of modernism, and onto the next, higher level. One that realizes that though Luke's purpose was not only history but religion, it accepts what it must: that truth does indeed exist independent of the human mind.
and, of course, now i've fallen right into the trap Dave warned of: talking about explanation of evidence rather than evidence itself...
really great discussion though, Vinny, thank you again for really giving us your thoughts.
it seems though, under the thought that nothing can be taken at face value that one would have to consider even the possibility that Romeo and Juliet was written in Russia, or that Rasputin was killed over a bologne sandwich. I am curious, as Dave asked earlier, what evidence would you accept?
Vinny, I gotta say, I’m really enjoying our discussion – you’re making me do my homework! Thanks for participating for so long!
Now, on to Sherwin-White. The sentence immediately following your quote is “But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius”. He recognises that, though not perfect, it is still a valid source of information about Tiberius. It should be noted that he said this at his Sarum Lectures at the University of London in, according to my understanding of Dr. John Warwick Montgomery’s comments, the context of REFUTING the type of scepticism that you seem to be advocating (don't mean to shout, can't figure out how to do italics...).
Montgomery then shares an anecdote from a debate he participated in. He says “if one compares the New Testament documents with universally accepted secular writings of antiquity, the New Testament is more than vindicated. Some years ago, when I debated philosophy professor Avrum Stroll of the University of British Columbia on this point, he responded: ‘All right. I'll throw out my knowledge of the classical world.’ ” I think that to apply the level of scepticism you seem to hold towards the Gospels to anything else of the ancient world (especially given what I said in my previous comments) means we have to disregard pretty much everything else about the ancient world, too. It seems to me to be an anti-supernatural bias that’s driving this style of criticism, and that’s philosophical, not historical.
Getting back to the issue of accepting things at face value, consider a court of law (to borrow Montgomery’s metaphor) where evidence is considered truthful unless somehow ‘rendered doubtful’. He draws this parallel with everyday life “where only the paranoiac goes about with the bias that everyone is lying.” To not accept what people say unless it meets your standard of evidence would make life very difficult to live! You need to show how the Gospels are untrustworthy. So far all you’ve said is that they were written some time after the events. That is simply not enough! So, I ask you again (as Robin just did - you beat me to it!), what type of evidence will it take to convince you that Jesus was buried and that His tomb was empty three days later?
Dave,
Your understanding might be better if you had read Sherwin-White’s Roman Law and Society in the New Testament for yourself rather than relying on some apologist’s description of it. I have not read what Montgomery has to say about Sherwin-White, but I have read interpretations offered by William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and several other apologists. They all misquoted or grossly misrepresented Sherwin-White’s position.
Sherwin-White didn’t say anything that is contrary to anything I have suggested here. He advocated applying the same types of critical historical analysis to the New Testament writings that he used when analyzing the writings of ancient Roman authors. He never suggested taking anything at face value and he never denied that considerable portions of the New Testament might have been corrupted by legendary or mythological embellishments. He merely thought that it might be possible to analyze and sift the writings to find nuggets of truth about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
The only skeptical position that Sherwin-White criticized was the one that said nothing whatsoever could be known about the historical Jesus. However, he did not criticize this position based on his own study of the New Testament because he acknowledged that it was outside his area of expertise. He based his argument on the fact that the New Testament writings did not appear to him to be any worse than the sources that historians of ancient Rome regularly dealt with. Because he had not researched the matter for himself, I don’t think you can claim that he refuted anything. He merely indicated that he did not find the arguments persuasive.
Sherwin-White also did not express any expectations of how much of the New Testament writings might prove to be historical should he have done the research. Nothing in his writing suggested that he would have found any stories of the supernatural to be credible. It is possible that he would have found less than five percent of the gospels historical. It is even possible that he would have come to agree with the most extreme skeptics once he had analyzed the texts for himself although he clearly would not have expected that outcome.
Christian apologists like to quote the language in which Sherwin-White criticizes the “we know nothing about Jesus” position, but they neglect to mention that this was as far as he went. His criticism would not have applied to a “we know very little about Jesus” position. He still believed that the historical-critical method should be applied to the New Testament, which is what scholars like Bart Ehrman try to do.
There are a couple of holes in Montgomery’s court metaphor. The smaller hole is the hurdles that evidence must pass before it is admitted in the first place. There are chain-of-custody requirements for physical evidence and first hand knowledge requirements for witness testimony. Evidence in court only gets the benefit of the doubt once it has met the foundational requirements for admission in the first place.
The bigger hole in the court metaphor is the fact that the case is not decided until an opposing advocate gets the opportunity to render doubtful that evidence that is initially considered truthful. The witness’ testimony is not taken at face value. He is cross-examined. His ability to observe events is scrutinized. His veracity is tested. His memory is challenged. His biases are questions. He must deal with alternative theories. Every piece of evidence is subject to challenge. Moreover, contrary evidence is admitted and considered. To the extent that there is any presumption in favor of properly admitted evidence, it is only the starting point in the process.
The reasons historians apply critical methodology is because they have to play the role of the opposing advocate in testing the evidence. They have to try to determine whether the witness had first hand knowledge, whether he was in a position to observe what he reports, whether time might have distorted the story, whether the story might have been an invention to discredit a political opponent. When there are plausible alternatives that cannot be eliminated, the historian must acknowledge his level of uncertainty about the facts.
Well, Vinny, you are right that my understanding would be better if I had the book myself and wasn’t forced to rely on others, so I’ll concede that point, however I find it difficult to believe that men of such academic standing as Habermas and Craig would be guilty of misquoting or misrepresenting another scholar.
I think I’m gonna leave this particular point now, because it’s become unproductive – we obviously differ on whether to take the Gospels at face value or not, and I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other of their position. So, let me just ask you for the fourth time something you still haven’t addressed:
What kind of evidence regarding the burial and empty tomb would you accept?
I don't see as how those holes work against Christian evidence any more than they do other historical evidence. The only reason you throw out Christian evidence seems to be because of supernatural events. Understandable, but more on that in a moment.
I actually agree with Sherwin-White on that point, but I don't see as how it makes any real difference myself. I agree that the highest standards should always be kept in any investigation. But let me get this straight... you quote for evidence a man against us... who has not actually done the work himself? I'm not sure I understand the logic in that. TO assume to Christians or Christian scholarship is shoddy just because you don't like the conclusion isn't good scholarship, it's bias.
However that is all beside the point. You still have dont nothing but avoid the question (I don't know how many times it's been asked now), "What kind of evidence would you accept?" WHich leads me to think you don?t want to. Because you wouldn't accept any. Because it's bias. You have already decided on a priori basis that anything supernatural cannot be worthy or true. That simply isn't open minded.
Let me give a quick example. A man the other day said in an article that he thought C.S. Lewis wasn't a "true atheist" to begin with because he "switched sides." This fella held his atheism as a belief from which he wouldn't veer. On the other hand, Lewis looked at all the evidence objectively and found that, all things considered - including supernatural possibilities - the Christian answer was the correct one. Because He was truly open minded.
I, for one, am the same. I choose Christ because there is internal and external, including theological and philosophical, that points, I feel very plainly, to Christ. If you, Vinny, have come to another conclusion, that is fine. You won't change our minds though, and we know that none but God can change a man's mind anyway... and since you, a priori, dismiss Him, well...
Sorry for the caps and spelling - that's what I get for writing on my iPhone on the train.
It's been pointed out that my last statement may seem closed minded - I need to clear that up: it's not that our minds couldn't be changed, but that, as of current scholarship, there isn't much evidence we haven't either read or at least heard of that offers anything to tear me away - and I don't think there ever will be. We cannot know anything for certain in ancient history, but I feel the weight of evidence leans toward the Gospels being true. Including theological evidence, etc. In the end, to say it all boils down to belief is to over simplify and sounds wishy-washy. But I think one must be open to such possibilities as miracles and the existence of a god. Is that good scholarship? I think yes, to keep all possibilities open is the best scholarship. That is my opinion. Anyone is welcome to their own.
Boy, have we veered from our topic or come closer to it?
Let's get back to point. DaveE, when is your next post? I'm excited!
Dave,
Maybe I am just being cynical, but I cannot help but think that your assessment of the discussion’s productivity is directly related to your ability to answer the points I am making. If you visit my blog and click on the “Sherwin-White” tag, you will find a discussion of the way that apologist’s have miscited his work.
I could tell you what I would find persuasive on the burial and empty tomb, but I suspect that your response would be to cite some other event from ancient history like Caesar crossing the Rubicon and exclaim “Aha! You must not believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon because we don’t have the same kind of evidence for that event.” It just so happens that I know enough about the historical sources that I could defend that one, but there are lots of ancient events whose historicity I could not defend. I have read a fair amount of history, but most of it is from later periods.
That is why I don’t see much point in answering your question until we are able to reach some common understanding of historical methodology. As long as you believe that a historian is supposed to take evidence at face value, then you are going to view any evidence I would wish to see as proof of my hyper-skepticism. The choice isn’t between hyper-skepticism and uncritical acceptance, though. The starting point for a historian is agnosticism just like it is for a jury in court. A written story is just a written story until the historian finds out more about it. The historian starts from a position of neutrality and tests the evidence to see whether it warrants moving one way or another.
I’ll give you an example from Garrett Fagan of Pennsylvania State University. I just listened to his History of Ancient Rome on CD. He noted that the sources tell a story about various omens on the night before Julius Caesar was assassinated. Among other things, it is said that his wife had a dream that he would be killed and warned him not to go to the Senate on that Ides of March. Historians cannot prove that it didn’t happen but there is no way to corroborate it either. Moreover, it is the kind of legendary story that someone might tell just to inculcate a moral like the story of George Washington admitting to his father that he had chopped down a cherry tree. The writers might just have wanted to show that Caesar was brought down by his arrogance in refusing to heed the omens of the gods. Modern historians can’t disprove it but they don’t consider it historical fact because there is not enough evidence to move them off the starting point of agnosticism.
Robin,
Is there some rule that says I am only allowed to cite scholars that agree with your position? Haven’t you and/or Dave cited Wright, Turek, Montgomery, Ramsay, Geisler, Bruce, Williams, and now Lewis? In fact, it was Dave who first cited A.N. Sherwin-White. I simply disputed Dave’s understanding of the Oxford historian. My point about Sherwin-White not doing the work is that he was a scholar of ancient Rome and an expert in Roman law. He was not a New Testament scholar. The comments that apologists like to cite were those of a scholar outside the field, albeit one who was very well informed about many of the issues.
As far as miracles go, I only brought up the supernatural because you quoted McCullagh’s reference to “known laws of nature” as part of the criteria for testing a historical hypothesis. While I am not inclined to embrace supernatural explanations, I am quite willing to admit that there are things that I cannot explain. I have heard stories of recoveries from illness or injury that defy all medical knowledge. Although I believe that there probably is a natural explanation somewhere, I have no qualms about saying to the theist “That sure is a good one for your side.”
Frankly, I think that you are simply trying to maneuver me into a position that you have selected for me a priori. It think it is based on what you believe about me rather than what I have said (or at least what I have said here).
Bravo! Excellent response, Vinny. And I have to say, I quite agree on most everything here. A few points though apparently divide us.
One, yes, it is true an historian must start off with agnosticism. But I don't see how historians could not accept the dream Caesar's wife had or not because there isn't enough evidence for it. If that is the case, then anything subjective must entirely be thrown out and that would be most ancient literature.
No, I certainly would not want you to quote just those that agree with our side, nor only yours. It was simply my understanding from your usage of Sherwin-White (and I'm sorry, its my fault, I misread and thought that you had brought it up.) in this particular case. And by the way, it was you, not I who brought up the "laws of nature" by McCullagh. I knew of it but did not mention it precisely because I wanted to see what you said and it was the response to that (that a resurrection defies known laws*) that reasoned my later statements about your "a priori" bias.
I may be assuming that you will say certain things in light of our conversation that you may not have implied here because I read your site and profile (great blog, BTW. very thorough) - I apologize if you think I am putting words in your mouth. It's always been my habit to want to know as much about to whom I am speaking (writing) as possible.
Taken holistically though, would you not say that since you leave most other historical evidence alone and seemingly go searching for Christian historical evidence on the web, that you either are still looking for an answer, or simply looking for an argument? (I'm not opposed to either, I like both and both are welcome! Iron sharpens iron and all that!)
I'm sorry my responses have been so disjointed lately, I've been writing in the middle of train rides, lunch breaks and the middle of the night without sitting down properly. As Dave likes to point out, that is usually how i get "owned!" haha
*Of course the resurrection goes beyond natural explanation! Thats precisely why they recorded it!
Vinny, so far as I can tell you still have only made one point – that we should not take historical sources at face value. Now, I disagree with that view, but my view doesn’t qualify as “unconditional acceptance.” I’m not advocating “unconditional acceptance.” I am advocating taking them at face value unless you have reason not to - something you have yet to show.
Do you take the Iliad and the Odyssey at face value?
Do you take the Gnostic Gospel of Peter at face value?
Do you take the Koran at face value?
Do you take the Book of Mormon at face value?
Do you take Gone With The Wind at face value?
Do you take Mary Poppins at face value?
Do you take The War of the Worlds at face value?
Do you take Scientology’s Operating Thetan Level III’s stories about the galatic ruler Xenu at face value?
I am pretty sure that all these books are written so as to appear to be reporting events that actually happened. I was going to include The Lord of the Rings trilogy until I remembered that the introduction acknowledges it to be a work of fiction. Still, I am sure that I could name thousands more works of fiction and mythology that appear on their faces to be accounts of historical events. Do you accept all of them at face value until you can demonstrate that there is something wrong with them or would you seek evidence of their truthfulness before you believed their stories?
I guess another question would be how you would ever show that there is something wrong with them if you allow for the possibility of the supernatural. It may well be that archeology has never confirmed the existence of the Nephites from The Book of Mormon, but doesn’t archeology depend on methodological naturalism? If you allow for the possibility of the supernatural suspension of natural processes, does the silence of the archeological record prove anything at all? How do you disprove Mary Poppins other than the fact that things like that can’t happen? If you allow for the supernatural, what’s wrong with a magic nanny?
I am not seeking to be snippy or snarky here. My point is that I do not believe that you would apply your “face value” approach to any writing other than the Bible. I suspect that for every other work of religion or fiction, you would look for evidence of truthfulness and accuracy before you accepted the stories.
Robin,
Fair enough.
If you have visited my blog, then I cannot complain that you have not fairly apprised yourself of my positions. I may still contest your understanding of those positions, but I will concede that they were not reached a priori.
As far as why I do this, I have been a happy agnostic for many years. I have no objections to religion per se and I see nothing foolish about believing in God. However, in my community, there are evangelical Christians who believe that the local school curriculum should conform to their particular literal interpretation of the Bible rather than the peer reviewed scholarship that comes out of leading research universities in the fields of biology, psychology, climatology, history, and sociology. In this country, there are evangelical Christians who believe that public policy towards homosexuality, the ecology, health care, and a host of other issues should be decided based on what they see as the Bible’s position on the question. This country even initiated a foolish war in part because some evangelical Christians (including perhaps the President of the United States) believed it to be a necessary part of some eschatological scheme.
I have no objection to religious faith, but I think that people who insist that matters of their personal faith be taken as objective historical or scientific facts are compelled to distort both history and science. In America, I think these distortions have either driven or enabled some very poor public policy decisions. I write because I think it is important to challenge that kind of thinking, plus I enjoy a good argument.
Robin,
The problem I see with stories like the one about Caesar’s wife is that stories often get preserved more because they are good stories than because they are true stories. The area where I have done the most reading is the American Civil War and it is fascinating that some of the Abraham Lincoln’s most famous quotations may be things that he did not say. When tracked to its source, it sometimes turns out that a quote was first reported several years after the war and was claimed to take place at a time when Lincoln was unlikely to have felt that way. Nonetheless, it may be so quintessentially Lincolnesque that it finds its way into many biographies. There is one famous quote from Confederate General Robert E. Lee found in many history books that appears to have been fabricated many years after the war in a spat between two generals over what went wrong at the battle of Gettysburg.
My wife’s mother was from Arkansas and there was a family story about her great-grandfather being a spy for the Confederacy who was caught and shot sneaking around behind Union lines. A few years back, we found a copy of the supposed spy’s muster card from the Union Army. It looks like he was a soldier from Illinois who deserted after the Battle of Shiloh and hooked up with my wife’s great-great-grandmother in Mississippi. After impregnating her, he disappeared. There is no record of his death, but there is some information that suggests that he might have gone out to Utah and married someone else. I can certainly appreciate why the woman would have told her son the spy story even if she knew the truth. It got passed on for 140 years just because it was a story the family wanted to believe.
When you read more than one work on the same topic, it is amazing to see how many controversies and questions there are. I have read several books and articles about the Battle of Gettysburg and I am amazed by how many things historians still aren’t sure about despite the wealth of letters, articles, diaries and reports written by soldiers of every rank in both armies. The way historians sift through every minute detail can be tedious, but it is fascinating to see them try to construct a coherent narrative from disparate and often contradictory evidence.
The problem for historians of ancient times is that they often have no more than a single source for an event an event. Nevertheless, they need to consider what they might find if they had multiple accounts. There can be little doubt that the one account would be contradicted on many points. They cannot dismiss the possibility that the account slanted or even invented things, to make the writer or his side look better. A historian might accept an ancient author at face value, but can he honestly express any certainty when he knows that such sources are routinely contradicted when other sources are available?
What I have found is that modern historians only get close to certainty about the most significant of ancient events. There might not be a lot of primary source material for Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, but the entire arc of Rome’s transition from a republic to an empire depends upon Caesar bringing his army from Gaul to seize Rome. It is impossible to build a coherent narrative without it. When it comes to less significant events, however, historians often seem unwilling to say much more than that the available evidence points in one direction and sometimes they can only acknowledge a range of possibilities.
I don’t think that stories like Caesar’s wife’s dream have to be thrown out though. Historians can still acknowledge that it could have happened and the story still tells us about the Romans understanding of the specific events and how the world worked in general. That information might be important in understanding some other event. But as to its historicity, I think agnosticism is probably the conclusion of most historians.
wow. you have a lot of time on your hands i take it.
I'm off to bed so will answer more in the morning, but as to your first question:
"Do you take the Iliad and the Odyssey at face value?
[There is a lot of evidence that something happened, yes, but as to what, we aren't sure. We do know that ancient Greeks thought the war to have been real - so there is probably some basis for that belief in actual battles, if not a war. There is significant corroborating evidence either way. Homer on the other hand wrote them as homages to his gods, because they are in cyclic poetic form. Any student of literature would take some part of them seriously if not on the whole.]
Do you take the Gnostic Gospel of Peter at face value?
[I would except that it fails at other tests of hermeneutics and internal support.]
Do you take the Koran at face value?
[have you read it? as far as much of it is concerned, yes, i do. It does not theologically stand up to itself, nor to Judaism nor Christianity as it claims, and external evidence refutes quite bluntly some of the other claims it makes. This is clearly not the place for a discussion on the Koran]
Do you take the Book of Mormon at face value?
[Not in the least, as it fails outright. It says on the first page, this is the most true book ever written, however it falls flat as soon as it mentions elephants in America, honeybees or the Jewish decent of Native Americans. Aside from being a comic book of a religious text written by a man who had no understanding of history, language or theology. And yet people fall prey to it daily.]
Do you take Gone With The Wind at face value?
Do you take Mary Poppins at face value?
[I had a magic nanny...]
Do you take The War of the Worlds at face value?
[unfortunately, hundreds of thousands did. but of course every other bit of evidence stands against it, doesn't it?]
Do you take Scientology’s Operating Thetan Level III’s stories about the galatic ruler Xenu at face value?"
The other two aren't worth commenting on. My response to these, God gave us brains (most anyway). So let's use them. If I tell you that your mother-in-law is waiting in the car and you know her to be sitting in the same room as you are, clearly I am deranged or a liar. Corroborating evidence denies me.
I'm going to bed. more on the morrow. I've got a bunch I want to write out but can't keep typing at 12:30 like i used to be able to... getting old... ;P
PS, i love a good argument too!
I had actually intended to direct those questions to Dave.
Firstly, books of fiction like Mary Poppins make no claim to be historical in nature, so I am not obliged to take anything they say as true because they don’t ask me to. The Bible does.
Secondly, as I have already said, I am not advocating uncritical acceptance of anything. I am saying that unless you have reason to believe otherwise you should take the claims of ancient documents at their face. If a document claims that X did Y and you have no reason to believe otherwise then what justifies your scepticism? Again, as I’ve said, yes that means we should take the claims of the Koran etc seriously unless we have reason to believe otherwise. It just happens in those cases we do have reason to believe otherwise, which is why we do. As I have attempted to show you the Bible contains many confirmed historical facts. Luke alone records 84 verified historical facts which show the credibility of his work. You have yet to show me why I should not believe him when he records the empty tomb and the burial.
Thirdly, I believe our discussion on the face value of sources has become unproductive because neither of us finds the other’s position compelling, and we seem to be going in circles. I think we can put this methodological issue aside and focus on the claims themselves. If you have evidence to show that the records of the burial and the empty tomb should not be believed, I’d love to see it. Otherwise you have done nothing to show my belief as unreasonable.
Finally, regarding your comments on the supernatural – I’m not an archaeologist, but I don’t think strict naturalism should be methodology applied, just as I don’t think it should be in science. Nor do I think that a supernatural explanation should be the first one explored – miracles are, by definition, rare! I believe that we should explore the natural explanations first, but leave the door open for the possibility of the supernatural. If we don’t, then no evidence can ever point to the existence of something beyond the physical world because we have excluded that possibility from the pool of option to begin with. If we take that position, then we are forced to accept a naturalistic explanation because it’s all there is. Greg Koukl explains it like this: you are a detective. The Mayor has just been murdered and the Chief of Police calls you in to solve the case. He tells you to use all the means at your disposal: fingerprints, ballistics, witness statements, everything you can. BUT – you can’t implicate a black man (or a white man, or a woman, or...). But what if a black man did it? You could never reach the correct conclusion because you have excluded a possibility right from the start. So it is with the events of the Bible. I believe, and see my latest post on the resurrection, that the natural explanations fall short, and the supernatural fits best.
Sorry about that. I'm just getting going today (need coooofffffeeeeeeee) and will respond a little later. gotta get some work done first. great comments though guys.
thought: you wanna move the comments to a new post? not so many people read comments as they do posts and these are all definitely worth reading. if there are 30 or so (really long) comments, i think people may miss a lot of the good stuff.
k, i owe, i owe, so off to work i go...
Part 1 @Vinny
I was watching Law and Order last night while ironing my shirts and noticed that, at the end, there is a disclaimer that the events taken place are fictional. I figure its for idiots, but who am I to judge, right?
As well, ancient literature did not actually have many of the genre we appreciate today. Historically accurate fictional narrative in the form of reporting such as we see in the Gospels did not exist in the first-century (and unless one supposes that fishermen, and even highly creative first-century “theologians” made a leap of literary genius almost a thousand years into the future, well… )
On the other hand, literature like that of Arthur and his knights of the round table, the Iliad, etc seem to be works of art based on beliefs and perhaps even people and events that the writers either wished to convey a moral point and assumed the audience to take it as such. Works such as The Gospel of Thomas or Peter* or even some of the wonderful Syriac writings were obviously written as things believed by those in a certain section. We can view them as dueling theologians perhaps, but Jerome and Eusebius, Augustine and Athanasius were by Spirit and wisdom, and just downright good logic and scholarship able to show where opinion, myth and legend step in. That is one reason the Bible was written in the first place, and certainly why it was compiled: to dispel and check the rampant heresy that people will ever propagate when speaking of their god. However, holistic, open-minded scholarship should be the rule. And by this, I mean perhaps consensus scholarly approach, ie theologians commenting on theological implications, historians on history, etc. Decidely not “historicism” as Lewis put it. Keats’ Hyperion is a classic example of “historicism:” in the words of Oceanus,
“…’tis the eternal law
That first in beauty should be first in might,”
So, I think it certainly wise and prudent to read things in the light that they are written.
The Iliad is a fantastic piece of literature – certainly by a man who thought that the war had happened himself and it would be foolish to think that it wasn’t based on something that had actually happened. But it is important to notice that Homer wrote it as prose, a homage to his gods and meant as inspiration and literature, not as historical fact. He may not come right out and say it, but as I noted earlier, he didn’t probably feel the need to. Either it wasn’t considered important (and it wasn’t until about 1750 or 1800) that it was read or believed as actual “history” in the sense that we think of it, or thought people would be able to tell the difference. And most scholars could, if not common readers.
Part 2 @Vinny
Responding to why you do this, yes, there are lots of "evangelical" (though I wouldn't generalize them so easily) Christians that speak loudly and have little worth saying. The same can be said for any group; there are always the "extremists" who usually don’t really understand what it is they are protesting. But we live in a society that must let everyone have their say. Many don’t see the cyclic and self-centering/self-defeating argument they make, but we cannot assume that everyone who speaks speaks for the whole group. We should, however, be patient and try, through praxis of love and grace to guide, not where we should go, but at least where we shouldn’t go. A fine line, and difficult to discern (and who discerns it?) I know. But that is one reason we have the government we do (not that I live in the States, but its still my home) and one reason I like and appreciate your (Vinny’s) blog. It’s a place where information (and I don’t mind that its biased – if one thing we have learned from postmodern critique is that all things are biased and we need to live with it and deal with it) is handed out liberally. What I think both you and I agree on is that in light of said postmodern critique, schools, institutions, media, politics and even, yes, evangelical Christians, though they cite the bias of the "evil" opponent, they rarely admit to it themselves. Schools ironically teach postmodernism as philosophy, but when giving their bias of evolution or Creationism, politics or history, they imply objectivity. This is wrong. I don’t want everyone to think as I do, just because I think its right. I want everyone though to be able to make a truly informed choice, which is what I think it is you too propose. That is why I don’t mind atheists nor Christians flouting their side – as long as the speaker gives room for his opponent to speak. A one-sided decision isn’t a decision, nor a choice. God gives us both, and if He thinks it necessary that we have the ability to do so, then so do I. God wants love, not robots and love is a choice, not a preset program.
I love your wife’s great-great-grandmother’s spy story! I know what you mean and understand what you are saying. But just as you say, historians often have more than one source. Your family’s story hinges on the fact that it was told by one woman, perhaps two and then passed down by many over several generations. Christianity on the other hand has such a broad base in Jerusalem and even as far as Rome that popped up, as it were, almost over night, without a "proto-Christianity" as DaveE points out in his latest post, spawning multiple attestations of a singular personality that the Christ they propose should be considered one man, a real person (see below), most descriptions lacking any sort of embellishment. (Besides, if I’m gonna put “magic tricks” in a story to help propagate my agenda, I’d come up with more clever and mystical ones that those…)
* (from Part 1) Internal critique finds praxis here. A friend of mine said once that the Gospels were devoid of personality, not attributing anything like it to Christ, Himself. I couldn’t argue more! All four Gospels drip with personality of this man who left His mark on the twelve and as well thousands and then, through them, the world! Pithy, frank, good natured and easy going yet hard as a coffin nail, Christ appears funny, devastatingly witty, apparently loves poetry and literature, relishes a good pun and sticking it to His interlocutors in a way that made them writhe. He is clearly driven to propagate the Kingdom of God (though what that means is a matter of debate.)
The gospel of Peter or Thomas, et al, all give singly different personalities and miracles that do not "jive" with the rest that is recorded and attributed to Y'eshua, Himself.
I hope that's coherent... I'm on lunch and eating with one hand, typing with the other.
Whoops, sorry Vinny. I did mention McCullagh's "known laws of nature" - not sure what I was thinking when I responded earlier. I may not have been. Been known to do that time to time. :)
Either way, I did intend the response.
Just needed to apologize for that.
Post a Comment