Historical Methods: A Primer

Introduction to historical methods and a rebuttal to Christian apologetics on the subject, such as those by G. Brady Lenardos and Josh McDowell.

In the early 2000's I came across an article by G. Brady Lenardos, "Atheists and the Resurrection--Framing the Argument". I originally wrote this article as a rebuttal. His article is no longer available. I have revised this article to being a simple introduction to historical methods. However, I am still using Lenardos' article as a reference point, for he makes the same kinds of claims that I hear from Christians over and over again.

I confess that I basically a layman on history. I've read a couple of books on historical methods, but that does not make me an expert. Nevertheless, I have provided references to my claims and the reader is free to refer to my sources if they do not trust my analysis.

I will be using two reference sources for this article, Chauncey Sanders' An Introduction to Research in English Literary History[1] and Louis Gottschalk's Understanding History.[2] Why did I choose these two books? They were used as references by Mr. Lenardos, claiming that understanding historical methods leads to the conclusion that Christianity is well supported historically. Apologist Josh McDowell also references those two books in his book, More Than a Carpenter. While I believe these references, if one actually reads them, supports the skeptic position, not the theist position, it cannot be said that just I picked references because they support my position. I picked the same sources as these two apologists, what could be fairer than that? (Note: those books are out of print but can often be found used at Amazon.)

Sanders book is a perfectly fine book for its purposes, yet its focus is on the history of fictional literature. Honestly, most of it isn't that relevant to the topic at hand. But, since it has been used by the apologists, then let's have a look at exactly what Sanders does say about biographies:

The student, in his capacity as reader, or even as student of the period, may find both pleasure and profit in the psychographic works of such men as Strachey and Bradford, and other biographical work in which interpretation carries the author far beyond--but not counter to--established fact. But for the student qua scholar, the only satisfactory biography is one that is fully documented, one in which a reference citing chapter and verse, is given to substantiate every fact set forth. (Sanders p. 126-127)

The Gospels, if intended to be taken as biographies of Jesus Christ, fail miserably at this test. As I said, Sanders is talking about biographies of authors, and may not be directly applicable to the study of the Gospels. But Sanders is making an important point: if we are to take a biography seriously then we need documentation. We need to know the source of each claim. We do not have that with the Gospels. Not even close. Take the basic claim of Mary being a virgin. The only person who could possibly know whether the claim is true or not is Mary herself. We have a claim that we know for a fact could not possibly have been verified, and yet stated as a fact. When a writing makes a claim that could not possibly be verified and would typically be considered impossible and stating it as a basic fact without a bit of support, that's a pretty bit sign that we are not dealing with an actual history book.

Now, I've often heard it claimed that that strong documentation was simply not the norm for the time of the Gospels and therefore I shouldn't expect modern historical presentation in ancient documents. Is Sanders just asking for too much, given the norms of the time? Even if that was a true statement, then we shouldn't simply give the Gospels the benefit of the doubt and act as if they are fully documented. After all, if poor documentation is the norm, that doesn't then elevate poorly documented works into a good historical document. However, as it turns out, it is not true that ancient historians did not practice documentation. For example, here is what Gottschalk says about a Thucydides, a fifth century B.C. historian:

Thucydides, who in the fifth century B.C. wrote his famous history of the Peloponnesian War, conscientiously told his readers how he gathered his materials and what tests he used to separate truth from fiction. (Gottschalk p. 51)

This quote from Gottschalk shows that the idea of documenting a historical record is an idea that predated the Gospels by at least five centuries. Now it should be noted that ancient historians, even the best, were not up to modern standards. But, nevertheless, the best historians were capable of documenting their work.

Another example of an ancient historian that documented his works (at least some of the time) is Suetonius. The following is a few paragraphs by Suetonius reporting on the birth of Caligula:

Gaius Caesar was born the day before the Kalends of September in the consulship of his father and Gaius Fonteius Capito. Conflicting testimony makes his birthplace uncertain. Gnaeus Lentulus Gaetulicus writes that he was born at Tibur; Pliny the Elder, that he was born among the Treveri, in a village called Ambitarvium above the Confluence. Pliny adds as proof that altars are shown there, inscribed "For the Delivery of Agrippina." Verses which were in circulation soon after he became emperor indicate that he was begotten in the winter-quarters of the legions: "He who was born in the camp and reared mid the arms of his country, Gave at the outset a sign that he was fated to rule." I myself find in the Acta Publica that he first saw the light at Antium.
Gaetulicus is shown to be wrong by Pliny, who says that he told a flattering lie, to add some luster to the fame of a young and vainglorious prince from the city sacred to Hercules; and that he lied with the more assurance because Germanicus really did have a son born to him at Tibur, also called Gaius Caesar, of whose lovable disposition and untimely death I have already spoken. Pliny, on the other hand, has erred in his chronology--for the historians of Augustus agree that Germanicus was not sent to Germany until the close of his consulship, when Gaius was already born. Moreover, the inscription on the altar adds no strength to Pliny's view, for Agrippina twice gave birth to daughters in that region, and any childbirth, regardless of sex, is called puerperium, since the men of old called girls puerae, just as they called boys puelli.
Furthermore, we have a letter written by Augustus to his granddaughter Agrippina, a few months before he died, about the Gaius in question (for no other child of the name was still alive at that time), reading as follows: "Yesterday I arranged with Talarius and Asillius to bring your boy Gaius on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of June, if it be the will of the gods. I send with him besides one of my slaves who is a physician, and I have written Germanicus to keep him if he wishes. Farewell, my own Agrippina, and take care to come in good health to your Germanicus." I think it is clear enough that Gaius could not have been born in a place to which he was first taken from Rome when he was nearly two years old. This letter also weakens our confidence in the verses, the more so because they are anonymous. We must then accept the only remaining testimony, that of the public record, particularly since Gaius loved Antium as if it were his native soil, always preferring it to all other places of retreat, and even thinking, it is said, of transferring thither the seat and abode of the empire through weariness of Rome.

The source of this particular quote from Suetonius comes from Richard Carrier's article, "Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?" in the section "Was Christianity Highly Vulnerable to Inspection and Disproof?" In that article, Carrier compares how a valid historical record compares with how Luke is written. Here is some of Carrier's analysis on the quote from Suetonius:

This is how a critical historian behaves. His methods and critical judgment become transparent and laid out for the reader to see. He names--or at least mentions or describes--his sources. In this particular case, Suetonius identifies Gaetulicus, Pliny the Elder, the Acta Publica, and the letters of Augustus, as well as an anonymous oral tradition and a public inscription at Ambitarvium, all in addition to "the historians of Augustus." He analyzes the conflicting claims and tells us how he decided on one over the other--indeed, it is already important that he tells us there were conflicting traditions. He lists the evidence and criticizes it. He gives us information about the reliability of his sources--for instance, he tells us when a source is anonymous, and admits that is a mark against it, and he tells us what evidence any given author appealed to, and remarks on their possible motives. He quotes documents or sources verbatim. And he is openly attentive to chronological inconsistencies.

Luke does none of these things. He never even mentions method, much less shows his methods to us, or any critical judgment at all. He never names even a single (relevant) source, nor does he give us anything like a useful description of any of his sources, and he certainly never tells us which sources he used for which details of his history. And Luke must surely have known there were conflicting claims, yet he never tells us about them, but instead just narrates his account as if everything were indisputable, never once telling us how or why he chose one version or detail and left out others. For example, though Luke copies Mark, he never tells us he did, much less for which material, and he changes what Mark said in some places. This entails either that Luke is fabricating, or preferring some other source that contradicted Mark. So why don't we hear of this other source? Or of why Luke preferred it? Likewise, it is impossible to believe that Luke "closely followed everything" and yet had never heard of the alternative nativity account presented in Matthew (unless, of course, Matthew wrote after Luke and made it all up). Moreover, Luke tells us nothing about the relative reliability of his sources--for instance, he never identifies what (if anything) came from anonymous sources, nor does he ever show any interest in distinguishing good from bad evidence or certain from uncertain information. For example, why did he trust Mark in the first place? Who wrote it? What sources did its author use? Luke doesn't say. He never even quotes any history, nor shows much concern for establishing a precise chronology (essentially giving us only a single date in 3:1, which is tied only to John and is thus ambiguous as to any event in the life of Jesus).

Compare the difference between how the Gospels present the virgin birth versus how Suetonius reports on the birth of Caligula. The alleged virgin birth is reported in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which present the virgin birth as fact without providing any evidence -- despite the fact that there is no possible way for the writers to check whether it actually was true or not. While Suetonius reporting on the ordinary birth of Caligula lays out what he knows and doesn't know and how. So, no, the Gospels do NOT represent good historical reporting, not even for their era.

Before I leave the discussion of Suetonius behind, it should be noted that he often did not give good references, and is actually often dismissed as a "rumor monger". So, its not the Suetonius was some model of historical research -- far from it. The point here is even an unreliable rumor monger like Suetonius is still demonstrably better at historical methods than the Gospel authors.

In Lenardos' paper, he insisted that history is "objective", different people if they apply the same criteria, will come up with the same results. Unfortunately, history isn't that cut and dry. It is, by necessity, a subjective pursuit. Here is what Gottschalk has to say on the issue:

In short, the historian's aim is verisimilitude with regard to a perished past--a subjective process--rather than experimental certainty with regard to an objective reality. [emphasis added] He tries to get as close as approximation to the truth about the past as constant correction of his mental images will allow, at the same time recognizing that the truth has in fact eluded him forever. Here is an essential difference between the study of man's past and a man's physical environment. Physics, for example, has an extrinsic and whole object to study--the physical universe--that does not change because the physicist is studying it, no matter how much his understanding of it may change. History has only detached and scattered objects to study that do not together make up the total object that is the historian is studying and that object--the past of mankind--having largely disappeared, exists only in as far as his always incomplete and frequently changing understanding of it can re-create it. (Gottschalk p. 47-48)

Here are some more related passages dealing with the subjective nature of history:

In other words, the historian establishes verisimilitude rather than objective truth. Though there is a high correlation between the two, they are not necessarily identical. (Gottschalk p. 139-140)

The historian must do what he can do to restore the total past of mankind. He has no way of doing so but in terms of his own experience. (Gottschalk p. 46)

The historian is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened. For the exercise of the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules except very general ones. It is a platitude that the historian who knows contemporary life best will understand past life best. Since the human mentality has not changed noticeably in historic times, present generations can understand past generations in terms of their own experience. (Gottschalk p. 50)

And so historiography, the synthesizing of historical data into narrative or expositions [...] is not easily made the subject of rules and regulations. Some room must be left for naive talent and inspiration, and perhaps this is a good thing. (Gottschalk p. 50)

The problem of re-creating the historical past grows more and more difficult the further back in history we look. Here is some of what Gottschalk says about studying more ancient history:

For many early periods of history, less disagreement is found among the sources, because there are fewer sources than for more recent periods. [...] Thus a greater degree of consensus and certitude my easily exist among historians where the testimony is lacking than where it is full. Perhaps nothing provides more eloquent proof than this that the historian's "truths" are derived from analytical evaluations of an object called "sources" rather than an object called "the actual past." (Gottschalk p. 170-171)

The above passage is important, because it shows that apparent "consensus and certitude" doesn't necessarily imply factualness at all. "Consensus and certitude" may only mean that simply no contradictory evidence has survived. In the following passage, Gottschalk elaborates on the issue of missing data:

The past, having happened, has perished forever with only occasional traces. To begin with, although the absolute number of historical writings is staggering, only a small part of what happened in the past was ever observed. A moment's reflection is sufficient to establish that fact. How much, for example, of what you do, say, or think has ever observed by anyone--including yourself? Multiply your unobserved actions, thoughts, words and physiological processes by 2,000,000,000 and you'll get a rough estimate of the amount of unobserved happenings that go on in the world all the time. And only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was remembered was recorded; only part of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to a historian's attention; only a part of what has come to their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been grasped; and only part of what has been grasped can be expanded or narrated by the historian. The whole history of the past (what has been called history-as-actuality) can be known to him only through the surviving record of it (history-as-record), and most of history-as-record is only the surviving part of the recorded part of the remembered part of the observed part of that whole. (Gottschalk p. 45-46)

Having quoted substantially from Gottschalk on the problems that face the historian, one might think the historian's task is totally hopeless. But of course the point of Gottschalk's book is that there are methods to obtain "verisimilitude." Gottschalk provides a guideline for testing the validity of historical testimony:

To [the historian,] any single detail of testimony is credible--even if it is contained in a document obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on hearsay evidence, or is from an interested party--provided it can pass four tests:

1. Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary witness) able to tell the truth?

2. Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?

3. Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination?

4. Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under examination? (Gottschalk p. 150)

In Lenardos' paper, he claimed that skeptics don't use accepted historical standards to discount the Resurrection. He insisted that a skeptic response to his arguments be based on a reliable "historical method". So for point of discussion, I will call the above passage the "Gottschalk Method," though Gottschalk did not call it as such. Nor did he make any claims that he was providing any sort of pure objective methodology. But it is Gottschalk's basic methodology as presented in his book. Gottschalk spends a good deal of time elaborating on each of those four points, to help provide better guidelines on whether a document in question passes each of those tests. I will make use of Gottschalk's elaborations to argue my position that the Gospels rate quote poorly on the "Gottschalk Method" and should not be considered reliable historical sources.

The first point is of the "Gottschalk Method" is whether the primary witness is able to tell the truth. In the following passage, Gottschalk explains the importance of using a primary witness:

The historian, let us repeat, uses primary (that is, eyewitness) testimony whenever he can. When he can find no primary witness, he uses the best secondary witnesses available. [...] However, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? (Gottschalk p. 165)

It is frequently argued by apologists that the Gospels are indeed eyewitness testimonies. However this is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact, the first two verses of Luke state specifically that he is not an eyewitness:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. [Luke 1:1-2 NIV]

Of course Luke claims to have carefully investigated everything he writes, but he tells us nothing on his methodology. He tells us nothing of his sources. We just know nothing about Luke's motives, his methods, his witnesses, etc. The three questions that Gottschalk asked above in regards to secondary sources (whose primary testimony, etc.), we can't answer.

Now it is often claimed that because Luke displays a good knowledge of history of the time, such as some of the history of King Herod, then we can infer he is accurate about the rest of his material. That simply isn't true. I could write a book that has lots of true details about George W. Bush, and still have lots of completely false claims in the book. Gottschalk addresses this issue specifically in the following passage:

In the process of analysis the historian should constantly keep in mind the relevant particulars within the document rather than the document as a whole. Regarding each particular he asks: Is it credible? It might be well to point out that what is meant by calling a particular credible is not that it is actually what happened, but is as close to what actually happened as we can learn from a critical examination of the sources. (Gottschalk p. 139-140)

The point being that you can't just say that since Luke is correct about Herod being king then he must be correct about everything else he said. As Gottschalk points out, each claim made in a document must be evaluated on its own. After all, if I write an article stating George W. Bush was president, that doesn't mean everything else I write is correct.

Back to the point about primary witnesses, as noted, Luke specifically states he is not a primary witness. Mark and Matthew make no claims one way or the other, so there is no good reason to assume that they are eyewitness accounts. Now John's account does indeed claim it was written by John the apostle, a claim to be an eyewitness. But remember, that is one single claim that must be judged on its own and not assumed to be true if something else that John says is true. In other words, we need better reason to believe it is an eyewitness account besides simply a claim that it is an eyewitness account. After all I can claim that I was a witness to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but that doesn't make it true. Further, I believe there are good reasons to conclude that John isn't an eyewitness account. But that discussion is out of scope of this paper, interested readers can refer to an article by Paul Tobin, "The Gospel of John".

Let me recap, the entire evidence that there is any sort of first-hand eyewitness testimony contained in the Gospels at all is the following:

1. A single, one-sentence claim in John that is it an eyewitness account.

2. A claim in Luke that the original sources were eyewitnesses, though no mention of through which hands, or even how many hands it passed through.

That's it. That is the entire case that a Christian can make that there is some eye-witness testimony involved in the Gospels. And there is evidence to contradict those two meager points above.

But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts, there are further problems with assuming that they are correct. Memory is faulty, and the more time that passes between the time an event happens and it was recorded, the greater the chance of error. The following passage by Gottschalk addresses this issue:

Ability of to tell the truth rests in part upon the witness's nearness to the event. Nearness is here used in both a geographical and chronological sense. The reliability of the witness's testimony tends to vary in proportion to (a) his own remoteness from the scene in time and space, and (b) the remoteness from the event in time and space of the recording of it. there are three steps in historical testimony: observation, recollection, and recording. At each of these steps something of the possible testimony may be lost. (Gottschalk p. 150-151)

Here is another passage on this issue:

Incomplete observation and faulty memory are often responsible for the inadequacy of testimony. Because a witness's reliability is, in general, inversely proportional to the time-lapse between the observation of the event and the witness' recollection, the closer the time of making a document was to the event it records, the better it is likely to be for historical purposes. (Gottschalk p. 90)

There is quite a good deal of debate about exactly when the Gospels were written. However, even the most conservative of Christian scholars admit they were written at least twenty years after the events. Note that Gottschalk doesn't provide any exact rule, or even a rule of thumb, as to exactly how close to the events an account should be written to be considered accurate. But it is fairly safe to say that human memory over twenty years is far from perfect. Christian apologists may claim that some record predating the Gospels may have been used as a source for the Gospels. Therefore, the claim goes, the Gospels really represent a record very close to the time of the events. But we have no evidence for this, it is just speculation.

The second point on the Gottschalk method is the issue of willingness to tell the truth. In the following passage, Gottschalk warns against about the problems inherent of the testimony of an interested witness:

One of the most elementary rules in the analysis of testimony is that which requires the exercise of caution against the interested witness. A witness's interest is obvious when he himself may benefit from the perversion of the truth or may thereby benefit someone or some cause dear to him. Certain kinds of propaganda are perhaps the worst examples of deliberate perversion of truth out of a desire to benefit a cause. (Gottschalk p. 156)

Now of course it is true that that just because a witness is an interested witness does not mean for certain that the testimony is wrong. An interested party can also be an honest party. That said, the fact is, the Gospels were written by Christians to support Christianity--they were written by "interested parties." Therefore, it is reasonable to exercise caution against taking them at face value. Of course this doesn't mean for sure that the reporting is in error, it just means that it is reasonable to exercise caution.

Many Christians will argue that skeptics are far more skeptical of Christian claims than they would be of any other claims. They may concede, sure, its always possible that some of the early Christians colored their accounts because of their bias, but, if the skeptic doesn't consider the bias of other historians of the time, why should the bias of the early Christians be put under such scrutiny? In other words, a charge of a double-standard on the part of the skeptic. But, the fact of the matter is that bias of secular historians is indeed considered. It is now accepted by modern historians that the histories produced by even the best of the ancient historians have inaccuracies because of the bias or agenda of the author. Michael Grant's book, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, demonstrates why ancient historians -- even the best of them -- should not always be taken at face value. There isn't a double standard at work, what is at work is that most Christians haven't the slightest idea about how history works and erroneously charge skeptics of applying skepticism only in regards to Christian claims. Possible bias of an author should always be considered, whether the author is religious or secular.

That said, it is simply a fact that religious bias is among the most egregious. Most Christians have no trouble seeing that a Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc. can be biased in favor of their religion. Yet are astonished or offended when non-Christians suspect bias on the part of Christians.

To return to the bullet points laid out by Gottschalk, he didn't actually elaborate much on his third point. The point is simply, when an author relies on some primary source, did the author present the primary source accurately? Since we don't even know if there was a primary source or what they were if there were primary sources, again, the Gospels fail the Gottshalk Method.

Gottschalk's forth point refers to independent testimony of multiple witnesses. In the following passage, Gottschalk elaborates on this point:

The general rule of historians [...] is to accept as historical only those particulars which rest upon the independent testimony of two or more reliable witnesses. [...] Independence is not, however, always easy to determine, as the controversy over the Synoptic Gospels well illustrates. Whenever any two witnesses agree, it may be that they do so because they are testifying independently to an observed fact, but it is possible that they agree only because one has copied from the other, or because one has been unduly influenced by the other, or because both have copied from or been unduly influenced by a third source. Unless the independence of the observers is established, agreement may be confirmation of a lie or a mistake rather than a corroboration of a fact. (Gottschalk p. 166-167)

It is interesting that Gottschalk happened to use the Gospels to demonstrate his point. It is widely argued by many scholars that the Synoptic Gospels borrow heavily from each other and therefore they do not represent independent accounts.

Further, we have no extra-biblical confirmation of any central event in the Gospel stories. Yes, we have extra-biblical confirmation of details of setting, such as the fact that Herod was king. But of any central event, like the Slaughter of the Innocents, there is NO extra-biblical confirmation. I'm aware of many claims of extra-biblical confirmation, such as Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum." Debating the merits of the Testimonium Flavianum is beyond the scope of this paper. (See here if interested.) But, even if it is genuine, Josepheus was not a contemporary of Jesus. There is not one single contemporary reference to Jesus Christ at all. And, since the Gospels are admitted by Christians to be written years after his death, not even the Bible itself is a contemporary reference to Jesus Christ. The grand total of contemporary references to Jesus Christ is zero and that is even including the Bible itself!

I suspect at this point, Lenardos might claim that based on the standards I have outlined above, all of history is destroyed. In other words, he might claim that I am asking for the impossible and therefore nothing in the historical record would be deemed valid by these standards. Fortunately, this is not the case. I will refer to an article by Richard Carrier, "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story":

Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world," as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon for a minute:

First of all, we have Caesar's own word on the subject. Indeed, The Civil War has been a Latin classic for two thousand years, written by Caesar himself and by one of his generals and closest of friends. In contrast, we do not have anything written by Jesus, and we do not know for certain the name of any author of any of the accounts of his earthly resurrection.

Second, we have many of Caesar's enemies, including Cicero, a contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing of the Rubicon, whereas we have no hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a hundred years after the event, which is fifty years after the Christians' own claims had been widely spread around.

Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing, including mentions of battles and conscriptions and judgments, which provide evidence for Caesar's march. On the other hand, we have absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the resurrection.

Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch. Moreover, these scholars have a measure of proven reliability, since a great many of their reports on other matters have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources. In addition, they often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute. If that wasn't enough, all of them cite or quote sources written by witnesses, hostile and friendly, of the Rubicon crossing and its repercussions.

Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single established historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only by Christian historians. And of those few others who do mention it within a century of the event, none of them show any wide reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and accuracy, are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared bias towards persuasion and conversion.

Fifth, the history of Rome could not have proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into Italy. Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted Italian men against Pompey's forces in Greece. On the other hand, all that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief--a belief that the resurrection happened. There is nothing that an actual resurrection would have caused that could not have been caused by a mere belief in that resurrection. Thus, an actual resurrection is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence--a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.

One of the points that Carrier makes, I want to point out for special consideration. He notes that scholars of the age, (Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch) did understand the concept of documenting their work. This underscores my arguments above that those who claim the Gospels meet the standards of their time are simply wrong.

I believe I have defended my case on the following points:

There is no such thing as an "objective historical methodology."
But, there are guidelines to help determine "verisimilitude." Using these guidelines, the Gospels fail miserably.
Using reasonable guidelines for "verisimilitude" does not destroy all of history.

That said, I would like to address briefly one other point Lenardos makes in regards to historical method. Lenardos says:

The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact. It is also improper to have a test that not only falsifies the issue at hand, but other issues we already affirm to be true.

Interestingly, I agree with Lenardos here, but not in the way Lenardos meant it. Rather, I agree with Gottschalk on this issue:

Conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of one or more witnesses. A claim that Cellini saw fire-dwelling salamanders, devils, halos, and other supernatural phenomena would hardly seem credible to any modern historian, even if Cellini were otherwise generally truthful, consistent and un-contradicted. And even if Cellini's statements were confirmed by independent witnesses, the historian would only believe that Cellini and his corroborators saw things they thought were fire-dwelling salamanders, devils and halos. General knowledge of how little effect a thumb in a hole in a dyke that had begun to crumble would be sufficient to destroy credence in a well-known legend, even if there had been witnesses to that Dutch hero's tale. (Gottschalk p. 168-169)

Obviously, claims of rising from the dead do conflict with known scientific facts. Therefore, using Lenardos own argument, we can see that the Resurrection can't possibly be considered historically validated! This passage above by Gottschalk is extremely important, so, I want to emphasis what he says. Gottschalk specifically says that even if a document is overall highly rated from a highly rated source with seemingly good eyewitness support, if it claims the impossible, then at least those claims can be discounted out of hand, regardless of how good the rest of the source is! That's just the way history works. And is exactly what a real historian, like Gottschalk, will tell you.

I know that Christians will claim special circumstances, but then we've stopped talking about historical methods, which deal with normal scientific facts of people not rising from the dead. Apologists simply can't have it both ways. Either you talk about historical methods, which implies events follow normal scientific facts, or you don't. It really is as simple as that. (This encroaches on the subject of whether science and miracles are compatible, which I explain in more detail in my Objection 2 of my The Case for Faith critique.)

I also had a written debate with Mr. Lenardos. His portion of the debate is no longer available. I have my side of the debate still on this site. The subject was the adage by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Lenardos adamantly maintained that one should use the same level of evidence to validate the mundane as the extraordinary. I doubt any real historian would agree with that--Gottschalk doesn't. And really, so does everybody else--Lenardos included--except when it comes to one's own religion. Only when discussing one's own religion does anybody ever argue that fantastical claims should be taken at face value. Nobody takes fantastical claims of anybody else's religion at face value. As Stephen Roberts said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

References:
[1] Sanders, Chauncey. An Introduction to Research in English Literary History. The MacMillan Company.
[2] Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History. Alfred A. Knopf Publishers.

Lenardos' fans: See here for my response to Lenardos' response to this paper

Back Home Up Next