Lenardos Debate - Round 8
This is round 8 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"
Lenardos - Round 8
Hi Paul,
I am going to keep this short. Your readers need to feel the full impact of what I am about to say. After we deal with these issues, I will return to the other items you brought up.
Paul wrote:
Hi Paul,
I am going to keep this short. Your readers need to feel the full impact of what I am about to say. After we deal with these issues, I will return to the other items you brought up.
Paul wrote:
|
“Lenardos spends round 7 responding to my answer to his question about “objective historical measures”, and then responds to my four questions. As far as the subject of objective historical measures, he responds that I provided no such measures. I disagree. What did I ask for? I asked for reports from non-believers who were witnesses to the events. Is this unreasonable, or not objective? No, I don’t think so. If you want to find out if, say, President Bush is doing a good job, do you only ask his cabinet members? If you wanted to find out if Sadam Hussein tortured political enemies, do you only ask his Republican Guard? No, of course not. What I asked for is exactly what anybody would ask for, unless of course it is about somebody's religion. Then all of a sudden it becomes unreasonable.”
|
No, Paul, you got it all wrong. What anyone would ask for is an objective, methodology that is used in historical investigation, which has been proven to give good results. They wouldn’t ask for something Paul made up. They wouldn’t ask for something that if applied to the rest of history would result in the complete demise of all knowledge of the ancient world. We already have all the necessary methodologies in place that do give us good results, but you refuse to use any of them.
Perhaps, here is something that we would agree on: Using any standard methodology of doing history used by historians, if applied evenly to the resurrection, will affirm the resurrection.
If you disagree with that, please show which methodology would not affirm the resurrection and the criteria used.
Paul wrote:
Perhaps, here is something that we would agree on: Using any standard methodology of doing history used by historians, if applied evenly to the resurrection, will affirm the resurrection.
If you disagree with that, please show which methodology would not affirm the resurrection and the criteria used.
Paul wrote:
|
“Moreover, Lenardos keeps insisting that what I requested would destroy all of history. Fortunately, that is not the case.”
|
Great pick any first century figure and apply your criteria to events surrounding him. Let’s review your criteria from your current post and past posts:
1) “I asked for reports from non-believers who were witnesses to the events.” I assume you mean that the witness can’t be someone who is personally biased in favor of the person in question. Would it be safe to assume that we couldn’t use anyone who was biased against the person either?
2) We need several of these witnesses
3) According to your last post these eyewitnesses would have had to written about this person and events in his life within forty years of the occurrences (or would you prefer 30 years. Your post seems to indicate that 40 years is much too long).
4) We have to have complete copies of their mss., that are no older that 50 years from the date of their writing.
5) We need lots of copies of these early manuscript.
That seems like a good start. I will go over your posts more carefully and see if I missed any other criterion.
I could save you a lot of time by telling you that you will not find any event that will meet these criteria, let alone the majority of what we now consider to be accurate history. But I am sure your readers and me will have a lot of fun watching: So, please go ahead
1) “I asked for reports from non-believers who were witnesses to the events.” I assume you mean that the witness can’t be someone who is personally biased in favor of the person in question. Would it be safe to assume that we couldn’t use anyone who was biased against the person either?
2) We need several of these witnesses
3) According to your last post these eyewitnesses would have had to written about this person and events in his life within forty years of the occurrences (or would you prefer 30 years. Your post seems to indicate that 40 years is much too long).
4) We have to have complete copies of their mss., that are no older that 50 years from the date of their writing.
5) We need lots of copies of these early manuscript.
That seems like a good start. I will go over your posts more carefully and see if I missed any other criterion.
I could save you a lot of time by telling you that you will not find any event that will meet these criteria, let alone the majority of what we now consider to be accurate history. But I am sure your readers and me will have a lot of fun watching: So, please go ahead
Jacobsen - Round 8
I actually went to the trouble to try to contact other atheists to try to respond to Lenardos challenge in a better fashion than I am about to. Basically, I'm afraid I must concede that what Lenardos is requesting, a comparison of the artifacts of some other historical figure of the period, and compare them to the artifacts of Jesus, and show why they are qualitatively different is a reasonable request. Ultimately, I am not the person who is going to be able to do this. And as such, I'm am just going to have to concede some points to Lenardos simply because I am not the one to be able to defend the counter arguments.
By the way, I asked for input on this challenge from several other atheists, including Paul Tobin, Earl Doherty and Dan Barker. Dan Barker did give me a short response, but basically referred me to his articles that I already referenced in Round 7. (http://ffrf.org/tm.php?tm=http://www.ffrf.org/articles/rise.html and http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/did-jesus-really-rise-from-the-dead/) Tobin and Doherty gave more substantial responses, which I am including below my response. But, ultimately, none of the responses directly answer Lenardos' challenge.
That said, all is not lost for the atheist position. My response will refer back to Round 3 of this debate, where Lenardos provided one possible answer to my question, what exactly are the "historical measures" to validate historical events? And to eliminate the issue of the supernatural (for now) let's just talk about historical validation of, say, Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. I would concur this event would not require "extraordinary evidence" to support.
So, in Round 3, the historical measures that Lenardos provided were 5 points. The first point was the bibliographical test. One of the points I'm going to concede is that I'll now accept that we likely have close to the original words. In Earl Doherty's response below, he agrees with me (over Tobin) that we can't really know. But, I certainly can't prove the opposite. So, okay, I'll assume that we have close to the original words and concede point point one.
Point two was, did the documents claim to be written by those "in the know". To me, that is a really weak piece of evidence, as anybody can claim to be in the know. But, okay, let's check this out. I know that Luke's intro specifically claims to be "in the know". I don't remember if the other Gospels also claim to be "in the know" or not. But, is claiming to be "in the know" of much value if there is good reason to conclude that they are not? In Tobin's response below, there is good reason to conclude that the authors of the Gospels are not actually eyewitnesses. And let's see now, a couple of the Gospels (but not all of them) assert Mary's virginity. How could the Gospel authors have possibly been "in the know" on this? Did they check Mary's hymen? When someone makes claims that they couldn't possibly have been "in the know" on, is this not another good reason to conclude that they are not?
Point three (or 3a) refers to external sources that claim the people are in the know. Well, I sure ain't conceding this point. There is nobody that even knows who wrote the Gospels, let alone people to say the authors were "in the know". See Tobin's response below for more info. Although I believe there is good reason to believe that Josephus' reference to Jesus is a forgery, heck, I'll concede that point and pretend the Josephus reference is genuine. But even if Josephus' reference to Jesus is genuine, he doesn't say the Gospel writers were "in the know."
Point four (or 3b) refers to external archeological evidence. Well, no doubt that Lenardos would claim that the Gospels win on that point. I'm well aware of the Christian claims of great confirmation of various settings of the Gospels. In Tobin's response below, he references some of his articles that argue some archeological finds do directly dispute some points in the Gospels. But I won't even argue that point. Even if Tobin is wrong, and all the settings of the Gospels are confirmed by archeology, that doesn't mean you get to have "carte blanche" to claim that everything in the Gospels are confirmed by archeology. You have no archeological confirmation of the crucifixion, let alone the Resurrection.
Point five (or 3c) refers to confirmation by other historians. Well, I would concede that at least most historians would say that Jesus was at least a historical figure, and the mythist position is minority position. So, I won't argue the mythist position and assume that there is some historical Jesus. But, I think you'd have a lot more trouble with saying that historians in general confirm all the minutiae of the Gospels.
In summary, using your own criteria, it is clear that the crucifixion, let alone the Resurrection, is not confirmed by history. Since you provided that five point list, I would have to assume that you think the crucifixion and Resurrection do meet your criteria. But the only way you could claim that the crucifixion and Resurrection meet those five points would be to use extremely, um, generous interpretation of those five points. You treat the Gospel writers almost like gods. What I mean is, if you get some confirmation of something in the stories, you then try to make the case that the Gospel writers are accurate historians. Then, once you've staked out that claim, you then try to make the bridge that anything they say must be right--no matter how extreme the claims. And this is just plain silly. For example, even if Josephus was a generally good historian, that wouldn't mean that everything he said would be instantly deemed accurate. Had Josephus made some extreme claims, they wouldn't be accepted as historical fact just because he was overall a good historian. That is how you try to make the case for the Resurrection being "validated by history" and its just a sham.
Which really gets me back to something I've been trying to say, and that is even if we are just talking about the crucifixion and not the Resurrection, history isn't about minutiae. When something that at the time of the event wouldn't not have been deemed a major event, it's out of the reach of history, particularly 2,000 year old history. History couldn't validate a crucifixion of a local preacher of a small town any more than it could validate that the guy who lived two miles down the street from him was named "Bubba". History, particularly ancient history, can only be reasonably certain about major events. And even then, the starting moments of the event, what got it "kicked off" is likely obscured.
Christianity is obviously of historical note as a religion. As it progressed, it touched the lives of millions upon millions of people. (Whether for the better or not, I'll leave not discussed.) And as it touched the lives of all those people, its progression left unmistakable traces. But the events that started it all, such as the purported crucifixion, that maybe a couple of hundred people witnessed, which happened two thousand years ago, and wasn't even written down for forty years--to even try to claim that such an event could be "confirmed by history" is just absurd. For example, if there was no media coverage whatsoever at some execution forty years ago, and the only reports you had now were people that worshipped the guy, would you consider that event "confirmed by history"? Of course not! And yet you think that a situation like this, but 2,000 years ago, is within reach of historical confirmation? Absurd!
I'd like to make reference to a much more recent event, the Great Chicago Fire. Certainly people want to know what started the fire. Was it the cow? There is evidence that it was indeed started by Daisy the cow, there is some contradictory evidence. To know for certain probably can't be done. But why would people want to know? The reason is, because what really made it history was of course all the people whose lives were impacted by the fire. Whether a cow kicked over a lantern wouldn't be history if there wasn't a fire afterwards. If there was no Great Chicago Fire, and I asked you if some cow kicked over a lantern in Chicago in 1889, you'd think I was out of my frickin' mind asking for history to validate this! But, we would be talking about the same event, whether there was a fire or not. If history couldn't confirm that a cow kicked over a lantern with no fire, then it still really can't confirm it with the fire. The fire itself, and the lives it impacted, is genuine history; whether the cow knocked over the lantern is trivia.
Similarly, if there was some other controversial preacher crucified roughly at the same time as Jesus' reported crucifixion, but this other guy never became the focus of a major religion, then the event would be out of the range of historical confirmation. But in the case of Jesus, just because it turned out to start a major religion, there is no difference as far as history's ability to validate the crucifixion of the unknown preacher as there is for it to validate Jesus' crucifixion. The Christian religion, as it touched the lives of millions, is genuine history; whether some preacher got crucified 2,000 years ago is trivia.
Before I put the Great Chicago Fire to rest, I'd like to add a few more points. One, the fire is far more recent than the crucifixion, and yet history is not able to discern for certain what started it. Two, the fire was instantly recognizable as a significant event of history, and was therefore investigated by trained investigators almost immediately--and yet it remains uncertain. How much more so for an event 2,000 years ago? And most importantly, whether the majority opinion is that the cow did it, or didn't do it, somebody that holds the minority opinion isn't branded "irrational". I don't happen to know what the majority opinion is as to whether or not it was started by the cow. But for the moment, let's say that the majority opinion is that it was not the cow, but I say that I think the cow did it. Would Lenardos then claim, "the only reason Jacobsen could hold the minority opinion that the cow did it is that he must have an irrational anti-cow bias"? The point I'm getting at is, Lenardos entire argument has been to try to show that the crucifixion/Resurrection is the best answer to the evidence, and then claim that if I don't hold that view, I must be irrational. In other words, he's saying that for me to think for myself instead of accepting his claims that his view is the majority opinion is irrational. This is a poor argument. History simply can almost never be sufficiently confident that holding a minority opinion would be irrational.
Now, when someone tries to argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, well I would have to be on the side of Lenardos that such a claim would be irrational. We even still have witnesses alive today. And it is well documented with pictures. And it is documented in numerous places all over Germany, and other countries that Hitler conquered. But what makes the Holocaust a historical event is that it impacted the lives of millions and millions of people. But now if we were to try to discuss whether or not one specific person was killed in the Holocaust. And that one specific person was not at the time a historical figure. Then try to discuss whether or not this one specific execution had been "validated by history" would be foolish. Now I am not saying that the people that knew this one person wouldn't have sufficient reason to conclude that they were killed in the holocaust. The people that knew the person probably have some evidence that they were captured by the Germans, and taken to a concentration camp, etc. And therefore, to the people that knew this person, they would likely have reasonable grounds to conclude that they were executed in the Holocaust. But the one person's execution would remain a non-historical event.
In summary, Lenardos is trying to twist history into confirming what it just cannot confirm, minutiae. History can't even confirm the minutiae of a preacher getting executed 2,000 years ago--yet Lenardos wants to claim that it can not only do that, but also confirm that this preacher rose from the dead! This is just so asinine that it astounds me that we are even talking about it.
We've had eight rounds so far. Of course I'm biased, but from my position, it seems clear to me that I've dealt Lenardos a rather convincing defeat in this debate. I respectfully request Lenardos admit defeat at this point.
What follows are the responses that I got from Paul Tobin and Earl Doherty. Tobin's response (and his supporting articles) should put the final nails in the proverbial coffin as to Lenardos' claims that the Gospels are "validated by history":
I actually went to the trouble to try to contact other atheists to try to respond to Lenardos challenge in a better fashion than I am about to. Basically, I'm afraid I must concede that what Lenardos is requesting, a comparison of the artifacts of some other historical figure of the period, and compare them to the artifacts of Jesus, and show why they are qualitatively different is a reasonable request. Ultimately, I am not the person who is going to be able to do this. And as such, I'm am just going to have to concede some points to Lenardos simply because I am not the one to be able to defend the counter arguments.
By the way, I asked for input on this challenge from several other atheists, including Paul Tobin, Earl Doherty and Dan Barker. Dan Barker did give me a short response, but basically referred me to his articles that I already referenced in Round 7. (http://ffrf.org/tm.php?tm=http://www.ffrf.org/articles/rise.html and http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/did-jesus-really-rise-from-the-dead/) Tobin and Doherty gave more substantial responses, which I am including below my response. But, ultimately, none of the responses directly answer Lenardos' challenge.
That said, all is not lost for the atheist position. My response will refer back to Round 3 of this debate, where Lenardos provided one possible answer to my question, what exactly are the "historical measures" to validate historical events? And to eliminate the issue of the supernatural (for now) let's just talk about historical validation of, say, Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. I would concur this event would not require "extraordinary evidence" to support.
So, in Round 3, the historical measures that Lenardos provided were 5 points. The first point was the bibliographical test. One of the points I'm going to concede is that I'll now accept that we likely have close to the original words. In Earl Doherty's response below, he agrees with me (over Tobin) that we can't really know. But, I certainly can't prove the opposite. So, okay, I'll assume that we have close to the original words and concede point point one.
Point two was, did the documents claim to be written by those "in the know". To me, that is a really weak piece of evidence, as anybody can claim to be in the know. But, okay, let's check this out. I know that Luke's intro specifically claims to be "in the know". I don't remember if the other Gospels also claim to be "in the know" or not. But, is claiming to be "in the know" of much value if there is good reason to conclude that they are not? In Tobin's response below, there is good reason to conclude that the authors of the Gospels are not actually eyewitnesses. And let's see now, a couple of the Gospels (but not all of them) assert Mary's virginity. How could the Gospel authors have possibly been "in the know" on this? Did they check Mary's hymen? When someone makes claims that they couldn't possibly have been "in the know" on, is this not another good reason to conclude that they are not?
Point three (or 3a) refers to external sources that claim the people are in the know. Well, I sure ain't conceding this point. There is nobody that even knows who wrote the Gospels, let alone people to say the authors were "in the know". See Tobin's response below for more info. Although I believe there is good reason to believe that Josephus' reference to Jesus is a forgery, heck, I'll concede that point and pretend the Josephus reference is genuine. But even if Josephus' reference to Jesus is genuine, he doesn't say the Gospel writers were "in the know."
Point four (or 3b) refers to external archeological evidence. Well, no doubt that Lenardos would claim that the Gospels win on that point. I'm well aware of the Christian claims of great confirmation of various settings of the Gospels. In Tobin's response below, he references some of his articles that argue some archeological finds do directly dispute some points in the Gospels. But I won't even argue that point. Even if Tobin is wrong, and all the settings of the Gospels are confirmed by archeology, that doesn't mean you get to have "carte blanche" to claim that everything in the Gospels are confirmed by archeology. You have no archeological confirmation of the crucifixion, let alone the Resurrection.
Point five (or 3c) refers to confirmation by other historians. Well, I would concede that at least most historians would say that Jesus was at least a historical figure, and the mythist position is minority position. So, I won't argue the mythist position and assume that there is some historical Jesus. But, I think you'd have a lot more trouble with saying that historians in general confirm all the minutiae of the Gospels.
In summary, using your own criteria, it is clear that the crucifixion, let alone the Resurrection, is not confirmed by history. Since you provided that five point list, I would have to assume that you think the crucifixion and Resurrection do meet your criteria. But the only way you could claim that the crucifixion and Resurrection meet those five points would be to use extremely, um, generous interpretation of those five points. You treat the Gospel writers almost like gods. What I mean is, if you get some confirmation of something in the stories, you then try to make the case that the Gospel writers are accurate historians. Then, once you've staked out that claim, you then try to make the bridge that anything they say must be right--no matter how extreme the claims. And this is just plain silly. For example, even if Josephus was a generally good historian, that wouldn't mean that everything he said would be instantly deemed accurate. Had Josephus made some extreme claims, they wouldn't be accepted as historical fact just because he was overall a good historian. That is how you try to make the case for the Resurrection being "validated by history" and its just a sham.
Which really gets me back to something I've been trying to say, and that is even if we are just talking about the crucifixion and not the Resurrection, history isn't about minutiae. When something that at the time of the event wouldn't not have been deemed a major event, it's out of the reach of history, particularly 2,000 year old history. History couldn't validate a crucifixion of a local preacher of a small town any more than it could validate that the guy who lived two miles down the street from him was named "Bubba". History, particularly ancient history, can only be reasonably certain about major events. And even then, the starting moments of the event, what got it "kicked off" is likely obscured.
Christianity is obviously of historical note as a religion. As it progressed, it touched the lives of millions upon millions of people. (Whether for the better or not, I'll leave not discussed.) And as it touched the lives of all those people, its progression left unmistakable traces. But the events that started it all, such as the purported crucifixion, that maybe a couple of hundred people witnessed, which happened two thousand years ago, and wasn't even written down for forty years--to even try to claim that such an event could be "confirmed by history" is just absurd. For example, if there was no media coverage whatsoever at some execution forty years ago, and the only reports you had now were people that worshipped the guy, would you consider that event "confirmed by history"? Of course not! And yet you think that a situation like this, but 2,000 years ago, is within reach of historical confirmation? Absurd!
I'd like to make reference to a much more recent event, the Great Chicago Fire. Certainly people want to know what started the fire. Was it the cow? There is evidence that it was indeed started by Daisy the cow, there is some contradictory evidence. To know for certain probably can't be done. But why would people want to know? The reason is, because what really made it history was of course all the people whose lives were impacted by the fire. Whether a cow kicked over a lantern wouldn't be history if there wasn't a fire afterwards. If there was no Great Chicago Fire, and I asked you if some cow kicked over a lantern in Chicago in 1889, you'd think I was out of my frickin' mind asking for history to validate this! But, we would be talking about the same event, whether there was a fire or not. If history couldn't confirm that a cow kicked over a lantern with no fire, then it still really can't confirm it with the fire. The fire itself, and the lives it impacted, is genuine history; whether the cow knocked over the lantern is trivia.
Similarly, if there was some other controversial preacher crucified roughly at the same time as Jesus' reported crucifixion, but this other guy never became the focus of a major religion, then the event would be out of the range of historical confirmation. But in the case of Jesus, just because it turned out to start a major religion, there is no difference as far as history's ability to validate the crucifixion of the unknown preacher as there is for it to validate Jesus' crucifixion. The Christian religion, as it touched the lives of millions, is genuine history; whether some preacher got crucified 2,000 years ago is trivia.
Before I put the Great Chicago Fire to rest, I'd like to add a few more points. One, the fire is far more recent than the crucifixion, and yet history is not able to discern for certain what started it. Two, the fire was instantly recognizable as a significant event of history, and was therefore investigated by trained investigators almost immediately--and yet it remains uncertain. How much more so for an event 2,000 years ago? And most importantly, whether the majority opinion is that the cow did it, or didn't do it, somebody that holds the minority opinion isn't branded "irrational". I don't happen to know what the majority opinion is as to whether or not it was started by the cow. But for the moment, let's say that the majority opinion is that it was not the cow, but I say that I think the cow did it. Would Lenardos then claim, "the only reason Jacobsen could hold the minority opinion that the cow did it is that he must have an irrational anti-cow bias"? The point I'm getting at is, Lenardos entire argument has been to try to show that the crucifixion/Resurrection is the best answer to the evidence, and then claim that if I don't hold that view, I must be irrational. In other words, he's saying that for me to think for myself instead of accepting his claims that his view is the majority opinion is irrational. This is a poor argument. History simply can almost never be sufficiently confident that holding a minority opinion would be irrational.
Now, when someone tries to argue that the Holocaust didn't happen, well I would have to be on the side of Lenardos that such a claim would be irrational. We even still have witnesses alive today. And it is well documented with pictures. And it is documented in numerous places all over Germany, and other countries that Hitler conquered. But what makes the Holocaust a historical event is that it impacted the lives of millions and millions of people. But now if we were to try to discuss whether or not one specific person was killed in the Holocaust. And that one specific person was not at the time a historical figure. Then try to discuss whether or not this one specific execution had been "validated by history" would be foolish. Now I am not saying that the people that knew this one person wouldn't have sufficient reason to conclude that they were killed in the holocaust. The people that knew the person probably have some evidence that they were captured by the Germans, and taken to a concentration camp, etc. And therefore, to the people that knew this person, they would likely have reasonable grounds to conclude that they were executed in the Holocaust. But the one person's execution would remain a non-historical event.
In summary, Lenardos is trying to twist history into confirming what it just cannot confirm, minutiae. History can't even confirm the minutiae of a preacher getting executed 2,000 years ago--yet Lenardos wants to claim that it can not only do that, but also confirm that this preacher rose from the dead! This is just so asinine that it astounds me that we are even talking about it.
We've had eight rounds so far. Of course I'm biased, but from my position, it seems clear to me that I've dealt Lenardos a rather convincing defeat in this debate. I respectfully request Lenardos admit defeat at this point.
What follows are the responses that I got from Paul Tobin and Earl Doherty. Tobin's response (and his supporting articles) should put the final nails in the proverbial coffin as to Lenardos' claims that the Gospels are "validated by history":
Supporting e-mail from Paul Tobin
Paul,
The items you give below are typical fundamentalist smokescreens. There ARE many Christian scholars who use rigorous historical methods-but these are not the fundamentalists.
It as been repeated thousands of times by them. They do not convince once you see the loopholes.
And there are quite a number of holes in their argument:
a) The documentary claim is spurious-the evidence favors the contention that the authors of the NT documents were neither eye-witness (Matthew and John) nor friends of eyewitness (Mark and Luke). This is in my website.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewluke.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.html#author
So their initial claim that those who wrote were "in the know" is spurious. So once one destroys the claim of eyewitness or friends of eyewitness, the gospels can be taken for what it is, a collection of community tradition about Jesus which consists of historical nuggets, myths and legends.
b) There is one other assumption historians used which is ignored in the list below: Namely that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know it holds. (Thus historians would ignore stories about the miraculous birth of, say, Alexander the Great as myths told by admirers.) The resurrection violates these, thus it is an "extraordinary claim". The testimony (even assuming a to be true-which it is not) of a few people obviously in a heightened state of grief and perhaps guilt cannot be used to overcome these fundamental scientific paradigms.
c) Historical/Archaeological evidence do not all confirm the stories told in the NT. It is well known that Mark made some geographical errors, and Luke made mistakes about who exactly was the high priest during the time of Jesus. These are all in my website,
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html#geography
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukehistory.html
Let me know if you need more help, as I have a summary from the Jesus Seminar a group of liberal Christian scholars that DO follow the historical methods rather closely (including "a") above and they concluded that Jesus' body ROTTED IN THE TOMB. I can scan that page for you if you want.
No, I do not think you have got yourself into a corner and I am here to help. Your open mindedness to consider their views is proof positive that the skeptics (i.e. you and I) are the honest investigators on this issue!
Cheers and good luck Paul Tobin
Paul,
The items you give below are typical fundamentalist smokescreens. There ARE many Christian scholars who use rigorous historical methods-but these are not the fundamentalists.
It as been repeated thousands of times by them. They do not convince once you see the loopholes.
And there are quite a number of holes in their argument:
a) The documentary claim is spurious-the evidence favors the contention that the authors of the NT documents were neither eye-witness (Matthew and John) nor friends of eyewitness (Mark and Luke). This is in my website.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewluke.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.html#author
So their initial claim that those who wrote were "in the know" is spurious. So once one destroys the claim of eyewitness or friends of eyewitness, the gospels can be taken for what it is, a collection of community tradition about Jesus which consists of historical nuggets, myths and legends.
b) There is one other assumption historians used which is ignored in the list below: Namely that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know it holds. (Thus historians would ignore stories about the miraculous birth of, say, Alexander the Great as myths told by admirers.) The resurrection violates these, thus it is an "extraordinary claim". The testimony (even assuming a to be true-which it is not) of a few people obviously in a heightened state of grief and perhaps guilt cannot be used to overcome these fundamental scientific paradigms.
c) Historical/Archaeological evidence do not all confirm the stories told in the NT. It is well known that Mark made some geographical errors, and Luke made mistakes about who exactly was the high priest during the time of Jesus. These are all in my website,
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html#geography
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/lukehistory.html
Let me know if you need more help, as I have a summary from the Jesus Seminar a group of liberal Christian scholars that DO follow the historical methods rather closely (including "a") above and they concluded that Jesus' body ROTTED IN THE TOMB. I can scan that page for you if you want.
No, I do not think you have got yourself into a corner and I am here to help. Your open mindedness to consider their views is proof positive that the skeptics (i.e. you and I) are the honest investigators on this issue!
Cheers and good luck Paul Tobin
Supporting e-mail from Earl Doherty
Paul,
I have to disagree that just about any of the "validations" your correspondent cites have been met by the Christian documentary record in regard to the resurrection. That should be clear even to him, unless he has swallowed the type of misrepresentation of evidence such as one finds in books like that of Lee Strobel. You would certainly be in a position to point that out to him. Consequently, I can't see any purpose, or need, in proceeding further into the realm of general historical procedures.
I certainly don't disagree with you that since we have nothing in the way of even partial manuscripts until the 3rd century we have no way of knowing what the original texts might have said in any given case. I don't see why you feel so challenged by your respondent's claims, although I haven't checked out your debate. Perhaps I'll have time to dip into it later in the week.
As far as other historical figures are concerned, historians *have* applied their standards and have come up with fairly secure conclusions in regard to Nero et al. The problem is, those standards are not achievable in the case of Jesus and the Christian Gospel record. And there is no question of religious faith being involved in the former evaluations. I regard this type of argument as a red herring. The same importance is not attached to regarding Caesar's Gallic Wars as reliable and the Gospel story of the resurrection as reliable. The latter accounts also contravene reason and science, which the former does not.
Best wishes, Earl
Paul,
I have to disagree that just about any of the "validations" your correspondent cites have been met by the Christian documentary record in regard to the resurrection. That should be clear even to him, unless he has swallowed the type of misrepresentation of evidence such as one finds in books like that of Lee Strobel. You would certainly be in a position to point that out to him. Consequently, I can't see any purpose, or need, in proceeding further into the realm of general historical procedures.
I certainly don't disagree with you that since we have nothing in the way of even partial manuscripts until the 3rd century we have no way of knowing what the original texts might have said in any given case. I don't see why you feel so challenged by your respondent's claims, although I haven't checked out your debate. Perhaps I'll have time to dip into it later in the week.
As far as other historical figures are concerned, historians *have* applied their standards and have come up with fairly secure conclusions in regard to Nero et al. The problem is, those standards are not achievable in the case of Jesus and the Christian Gospel record. And there is no question of religious faith being involved in the former evaluations. I regard this type of argument as a red herring. The same importance is not attached to regarding Caesar's Gallic Wars as reliable and the Gospel story of the resurrection as reliable. The latter accounts also contravene reason and science, which the former does not.
Best wishes, Earl
Follow the 'Next' link to the next round.
