Hi Ark, it seems there is only one point I need to address – the choice of scholars.
“While I acknowledge it is important to study and consider all expert views in this regard it is also important to consider any and all possible motivation for holding such a view especially if such motivation may be influenced by a person’s religious beliefs or political views, which in context of Israel might be, to some, crucial.”
It is always easy to dispose of evidence one doesn’t like by inferring bias on the part of the scholar. It is a fallacy known as “poisoning the well”. And it can be just as well made against sceptical scholars. The only way to overcome this is to base one’s views on the consensus of scholars, not one of the extremes.
“In this regard, while alternate, more middle of the road proposals have been suggested regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence ( or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.”
You say this with great certainty but offer no evidence that this is the case. Of course you can quote a minimalist scholar, but someone else can quote am maximalist scholar and the merry-go-round continues.
So I will offer some reasons to support my contention that you are not fairly representing the facts. Here are a few references:
William Dever is not a theist (so you can’t pin that rap on him!): “the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information”
From a review of one of Dever’s books: “Dever has cogently described five approaches in use today for reconstructing the history of Israel (p. x). These fall into a continuum, and are so useful in understanding where scholarship is today that they are worth repeating. There are those who assume the Bible is literally true. Second, there are those who hold the Bible as probably true. Third, those who seek out “convergences”between the text and archaeology, without assuming the Bible to be true or false. Fourth are those who assume the Bible is false unless proven otherwise. And fifth are those who reject the Bible and also any other data that agrees with it, since the biblical account is inherently false. Dever himself holds to the third, “convergence” model, and is certainly the best example of its application. In spite of his vociferous opposition to the “Minimalists,” Dever decries the continual production of “rational paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible” (p. 224) and himself considers the Bible to be “historicized myth” (p. 226)”
Old Testament scholar Peter Enns (this one’s a christian so you can sharpen your axe if you like! 🙂 ) sums up: “Many–I would say most–biblical scholars and historians would say that the biblical narrative echoes real, though distant, historical events.”
Wikipedia says quite clearly that there is a range of views, much argued over: “most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically, and since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship”
This article from National Geographic concerns a later period than the Exodus, but points out the various positions among archaeologists, and the robust discussions between the minimalists and others.
I could dig out more if it was necessary, but I think it is clear, there really is a range of opinion among scholars, and you haven’t justified your choice to only mention one extreme, and thus you haven’t justified your strong statement as if it were fact.
You didn’t respond to my question about choosing NT scholars, but the same principles apply.
I didn’t expect agreement when you asked your questions, but it has been good for us each to show where we get our views from. Thanks.
I thijnk gary’s point about the tomb is a good one. many christians will even use the guards as “evidence” that no one could have stolen the body – Gary points out that even if the tomb were guarded as matthew claims, the guard shifts didnt start immediately, nor does Matthew say the guards inspected the tomb first to make sure there was a body and that it was the right body.
Gary’s point was good. If the tomb was guarded like matthew says, there was still time when the tomb was unguarded. and he’s also right in saying that if jesus was truly buried at all, and if the tomb were found empty, that a natural explanation beats any supernatural one.
when someone loses their keys, nobody’s first thought is “aliens abducted my keys,” or “god stole my keys,” or “leprechauns!” they’s first consider where they last set them, or then maybe someone stole them – anything that makes sense over leaping to supernatural things.
I suggest that Christians and skeptics agree to this statement: Supernatural events may be possible but of all probable explanations for an event, a supernatural cause is the least probable.
By agreeing to this statement, we skeptics accept that a resurrection is within the realm of possibilities, and Christians accept that a resurrection is the least likely explanation for why Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he had come back from the dead.
Therefore, unless Christians can provide extraordinary (hard) evidence for their supernatural claim, we skeptics should not be asked to accept any soft evidence such as hearsay, assumptions, and even expert opinion as evidence for their claim, when there are several or many natural explanations that can also explain the claim.
“And I also sense there is a minuscule shift in the scholarly leaning towards the age-old belief that Jesus was an historical figure.” – Stranger things have happened, there was a time when the Bible was believed to be inerrant.
UnkleE has not addressed this point: It may be true that the “majority of scholars” believe that Jesus’ tomb was empty, but the same cannot be said for WHY the tomb was empty. I challenge UnkleE to assert and provide good supporting evidence that the majority of “historians” believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead or have the integrity to admit that his belief in the reanimation of a first century dead man is based purely on speculation and very soft, not strong, evidence.
UnkleE is down under and may be asleep. He’ll eventually chime back in.
in discussions like this, i always hope a prolonged silence is due to them taking the time to think the points over. that is what i try to do, especially when presented with so many good ones.
it’s not a fight or competition. it’s an exchange of ideas and information, with the intention to let the data and logic lead. doesnt always happen for everyone, but i do try to follow reason and correct stupidity when found on myself instead of shutting my eyes to it, pretending it isnt there.
I suggest that Christians and skeptics agree to this statement: Supernatural events may be possible but of all probable explanations for an event, a supernatural cause is the least probable.
especially so because what is supernatural just like what god is has not been defined/ described in a manner that it can be understood.
Since we don’t know what kind of person the author of Mark was we really can’t say much about the empty tomb story. We don’t know where “Mark” lived or who his first readers were. He could have easily just made it up along with the character Joseph of Arimathea. It was a long time from the event and all of the original followers could have been dead or far away.
Imagine if I sat down right now and started righting about the life and death of Elvis Presley. With no newspapers, no internet and just oral accounts to go on. 38 years have passed and I have numerous accounts of after-death sightings of Presley. One man says he was visited by Elvis reincarnate and was taught about life and religion. There are accounts of people becoming healed miraculously when an Elvis song comes on in their room. Several Elvis churches have been formed and his followers have a name for themselves: Elvites.. How easy it would be for me to write down the sayings (or songs) of Elvis and include the miracle stories as well. Since I am aware that some people believe Elvis never actually died I would add some details about his death, where he was laid, and who paid for it. Later they found his casket open and empty! A great story! I can’t help it if someone copies me 10 years from now and adds even more details. Elvis and his original groupies are long gone or live far away. Now imagine if the president of my country catches wind of this cult centuries later and makes it a mandatory religion? Elvis would become forever immortalized and no one would know who I am or my role in the process.
You guys have very creative and active imaginations. Dave, the apologist will present the criterion of embarrassment to show that your Elvis story doesn’t match up to his Jesus story. But I like your story.
Finding Truth 
Hi Ark, it seems there is only one point I need to address – the choice of scholars.
“While I acknowledge it is important to study and consider all expert views in this regard it is also important to consider any and all possible motivation for holding such a view especially if such motivation may be influenced by a person’s religious beliefs or political views, which in context of Israel might be, to some, crucial.”
It is always easy to dispose of evidence one doesn’t like by inferring bias on the part of the scholar. It is a fallacy known as “poisoning the well”. And it can be just as well made against sceptical scholars. The only way to overcome this is to base one’s views on the consensus of scholars, not one of the extremes.
“In this regard, while alternate, more middle of the road proposals have been suggested regarding the Pentateuch the overwhelming, scientific and scholarly view based on what the evidence ( or lack thereof) shows is the one held to be minimalist.”
You say this with great certainty but offer no evidence that this is the case. Of course you can quote a minimalist scholar, but someone else can quote am maximalist scholar and the merry-go-round continues.
So I will offer some reasons to support my contention that you are not fairly representing the facts. Here are a few references:
William Dever is not a theist (so you can’t pin that rap on him!): “the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information”
From a review of one of Dever’s books: “Dever has cogently described five approaches in use today for reconstructing the history of Israel (p. x). These fall into a continuum, and are so useful in understanding where scholarship is today that they are worth repeating. There are those who assume the Bible is literally true. Second, there are those who hold the Bible as probably true. Third, those who seek out “convergences”between the text and archaeology, without assuming the Bible to be true or false. Fourth are those who assume the Bible is false unless proven otherwise. And fifth are those who reject the Bible and also any other data that agrees with it, since the biblical account is inherently false. Dever himself holds to the third, “convergence” model, and is certainly the best example of its application. In spite of his vociferous opposition to the “Minimalists,” Dever decries the continual production of “rational paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible” (p. 224) and himself considers the Bible to be “historicized myth” (p. 226)”
Old Testament scholar Peter Enns (this one’s a christian so you can sharpen your axe if you like! 🙂 ) sums up: “Many–I would say most–biblical scholars and historians would say that the biblical narrative echoes real, though distant, historical events.”
Wikipedia says quite clearly that there is a range of views, much argued over: “most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically, and since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship”
This article from National Geographic concerns a later period than the Exodus, but points out the various positions among archaeologists, and the robust discussions between the minimalists and others.
I could dig out more if it was necessary, but I think it is clear, there really is a range of opinion among scholars, and you haven’t justified your choice to only mention one extreme, and thus you haven’t justified your strong statement as if it were fact.
You didn’t respond to my question about choosing NT scholars, but the same principles apply.
I didn’t expect agreement when you asked your questions, but it has been good for us each to show where we get our views from. Thanks.
LikeLike
I thijnk gary’s point about the tomb is a good one. many christians will even use the guards as “evidence” that no one could have stolen the body – Gary points out that even if the tomb were guarded as matthew claims, the guard shifts didnt start immediately, nor does Matthew say the guards inspected the tomb first to make sure there was a body and that it was the right body.
Gary’s point was good. If the tomb was guarded like matthew says, there was still time when the tomb was unguarded. and he’s also right in saying that if jesus was truly buried at all, and if the tomb were found empty, that a natural explanation beats any supernatural one.
when someone loses their keys, nobody’s first thought is “aliens abducted my keys,” or “god stole my keys,” or “leprechauns!” they’s first consider where they last set them, or then maybe someone stole them – anything that makes sense over leaping to supernatural things.
LikeLike
Ark that does clear things up
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suggest that Christians and skeptics agree to this statement: Supernatural events may be possible but of all probable explanations for an event, a supernatural cause is the least probable.
By agreeing to this statement, we skeptics accept that a resurrection is within the realm of possibilities, and Christians accept that a resurrection is the least likely explanation for why Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he had come back from the dead.
Therefore, unless Christians can provide extraordinary (hard) evidence for their supernatural claim, we skeptics should not be asked to accept any soft evidence such as hearsay, assumptions, and even expert opinion as evidence for their claim, when there are several or many natural explanations that can also explain the claim.
LikeLike
“And I also sense there is a minuscule shift in the scholarly leaning towards the age-old belief that Jesus was an historical figure.” – Stranger things have happened, there was a time when the Bible was believed to be inerrant.
LikeLike
My comment was a bit skew, I updated it at the bottom of the page. I meant to imply scholars are moving away from …
LikeLike
Ark – careful what you agree to – I suspect Unk plays chess, when Unkie sets the ground rules, he’s already thinking several moves ahead.
LikeLike
Done and dusted. Read on.
LikeLike
@Arch
Smile. Forgot Nate’s comment structure, read UP. 🙂
LikeLike
UnkleE has not addressed this point: It may be true that the “majority of scholars” believe that Jesus’ tomb was empty, but the same cannot be said for WHY the tomb was empty. I challenge UnkleE to assert and provide good supporting evidence that the majority of “historians” believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead or have the integrity to admit that his belief in the reanimation of a first century dead man is based purely on speculation and very soft, not strong, evidence.
LikeLike
Fortunately, Mr. Enaten, I’ve learned to read what you mean, not what you say.
LikeLike
Thakn the heavins that for. Few! About eleven, sir.
LikeLike
Love Nate, but his comment structure has no structure.
LikeLike
I struggled like you at first. I now try to remember to put a @Name so’s at least I I know who I’m talking to. 😉
LikeLike
The silence from the other side is deafening…
LikeLike
UnkleE is down under and may be asleep. He’ll eventually chime back in.
in discussions like this, i always hope a prolonged silence is due to them taking the time to think the points over. that is what i try to do, especially when presented with so many good ones.
it’s not a fight or competition. it’s an exchange of ideas and information, with the intention to let the data and logic lead. doesnt always happen for everyone, but i do try to follow reason and correct stupidity when found on myself instead of shutting my eyes to it, pretending it isnt there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary, people are sleeping.
I am not ready to agree to
especially so because what is supernatural just like what god is has not been defined/ described in a manner that it can be understood.
LikeLike
Since we don’t know what kind of person the author of Mark was we really can’t say much about the empty tomb story. We don’t know where “Mark” lived or who his first readers were. He could have easily just made it up along with the character Joseph of Arimathea. It was a long time from the event and all of the original followers could have been dead or far away.
Imagine if I sat down right now and started righting about the life and death of Elvis Presley. With no newspapers, no internet and just oral accounts to go on. 38 years have passed and I have numerous accounts of after-death sightings of Presley. One man says he was visited by Elvis reincarnate and was taught about life and religion. There are accounts of people becoming healed miraculously when an Elvis song comes on in their room. Several Elvis churches have been formed and his followers have a name for themselves: Elvites.. How easy it would be for me to write down the sayings (or songs) of Elvis and include the miracle stories as well. Since I am aware that some people believe Elvis never actually died I would add some details about his death, where he was laid, and who paid for it. Later they found his casket open and empty! A great story! I can’t help it if someone copies me 10 years from now and adds even more details. Elvis and his original groupies are long gone or live far away. Now imagine if the president of my country catches wind of this cult centuries later and makes it a mandatory religion? Elvis would become forever immortalized and no one would know who I am or my role in the process.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Love your comparison, Dave! Certainly makes sense to me …
LikeLike
Sorry typo. started writing*
BTW, those statements about Elvis are actual claims (if you believe the internet).
LikeLike
With Unk, it’s always a competition.
LikeLike
You guys have very creative and active imaginations. Dave, the apologist will present the criterion of embarrassment to show that your Elvis story doesn’t match up to his Jesus story. But I like your story.
LikeLike
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1975254_439186472917685_5835417289564628192_n.jpg?oh=f992769f2c1bab978136748d1440a656&oe=55C660FB&__gda__=1440019552_98fb6e4b3b7daf03d547770bf76f27e9
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops … thought the image would show. But do click the link. Think you’ll enjoy it.
LikeLike
Nan, that is a good one and you have given arch another reason to add to his list of arguments against WP
LikeLike