“Why were the Gospels written? We have no idea.” – I don’t think it was a coincidence that they all were written after the catastrophic event of the destruction of the second temple and the Jim Jones-style mass suicide at Masada two years later. It was a turbulent time.
(Interestingly, the Second Temple, after all of the work that went into it – when finished, 18,000 laborers were left unemployed – stood for only 18 years from its completion to its total destruction.)
An orthodox Jewish rabbi claims that on a recent drive on a lonely country road, a bright light stopped his car, told him that it was David Koresh, and told him that he (the rabbi) would be Koresh’s missionary to the world. This same rabbi then starts preaching a very modified version of the late David Koresh’s teachings, stating that he learned these new, “up-dated” Branch Davidian teachings from no living human being or book but by direct revelation from the dead prophet, Mr. Koresh himself!
We would lock this nut job up in a psychiatric hospital!
Yet Christians want us to believe, as historical fact, similar nutty claims of another Jewish rabbi living 2,000 years ago!
or imagine, if you can, that there was this guy names Joseph Smith who claimed that an angel informed him of a new revelation Jesus Christ… and that despite the odds, his cult still exists today.
A careful study of the Gospel details show that the writers were prepared to change things around to suit their theology.
Virtually every scholar agrees that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But what is interesting is to see what they add in and take out of Mark when otherwise copying his account word for word. Luke in particular changes the order of some events, apparently because it helps reinforce the theological point he wants to make.
My question is: if we know little details were changed deliberately, how do we know larger details were not also changed?
For those who are interested, the following talk from Yale might cause you to think:
Hi Dave, I was responding to your question about where scholarship has advanced the christian religion, and I outlined four areas where there is evidence that this has happened. Whether the arguments built on these areas of scholarship are convincing is another matter, but I will try to respond briefly to your comments.
1. I can’t see how any time-based physical universe or multiverse can have existed forever. (a) you can’t count from 1 to infinity, so I don’t think it makes sense that you could have a physical chain of events from infinite past to now, and (b) and in infinite time, all physical processes must have come to an end unless perpetual motion is possible.
2. The multiverse only pushes the fine-tuning problem one step further back. If a multiverse produces bubble universes by some physical process, how does it happen that every one is random and therefore different, which is required to explain fine-tuning? The multiverse would have to be as fine-tuned as this universe has to be, as Paul Davies has argued. This paper is the latest peer-reviewed paper I can find on fine-tuning and it discusses the multiverse.
Now re your question about evidence for the resurrection.
Argued simply on its historical and philosophical merits, Gary Habermas and WL Craig have successfully argued in formal debates for the resurrection as the best possible explanation of the facts, but I have never done that. I think a cumulative case is more reasonable. It would go like this.
(i) From the sorts of things I have already mentioned, a case can be built for the existence of a creator God. You currently don’t accept that case, while I do. But you may perhaps be willing to agree that those arguments make the existence of God a reasonable hypothesis that requires further testing.
(ii) Then we consider the historical evidence for Jesus, which includes what he did, what he said, what people thought of him and the basic facts about the alleged resurrection. I think you know all I would reference here. Using only passages that scholars would generally regard as historical, a good case can be made for Jesus as divine. If we don’t believe God could exist, then we couldn’t come to that conclusion, but if we accept the possibility of God, then Jesus’ divinity is also possible.
(iii) Then we come to the basic facts about the resurrection – empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend, disciples highly motivated by the resurrection, etc. Again, if we rule out God, then the stories are impossible and that’s that. But if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.
(iv) Antony Flew said the resurrection was the best attested miracle claim in history. NT Wright, one of the most respected of current NT historians, and a christian, has written a detailed book which provides historical support and perspective on the resurrection. JJ Lowder, an atheist who helped set up the Secular Web, studied the resurrection and concluded “On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I’ve seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.” So despite what sceptics say, it isn’t an outrageous thing to say unless one’s mind is totally closed to the possibility of God.
So one looks at the cumulative evidence. I don’t think the resurrection stands on its own, but I think it stands very well in that context. There are many options, but the two most obvious are that God really created, humans really do have free will and consciousness, somethings really are right and wrong, God really does sometimes heal and make direct contact with people, and Jesus really was the resurrected son of God, or else naturalism is true, the universe just happened and was amazingly lucky to produce life, people are just intelligent animals with no free will, consciousness doesn’t mean anything, ethics are just what works, people who think they have been healed or visited are mistaken or worse, and Jesus was a failed prophet who lefts such a powerful impression that people thought he had been resurrected.
It is in that context that I think the evidence for the resurrection is good, it happened and makes sense. Others think differently. We each make our choice.
“I don’t see how it doesn’t affect the atonement. Are the wages of sin not death?”
But neither sin nor death depend on the doctrine of Original Sin. They are both obvious facts of the world around us. Surely that is enough? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand.
“(iii) Then we come to the basic facts about the resurrection – empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend, disciples highly motivated by the resurrection, etc. Again, if we rule out God, then the stories are impossible and that’s that. But if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.”
False claim.
-Even if it is true that the majority of scholars believe that the tomb was empty, expert opinion is considered “weak evidence”, not fact.
-The belief that a legend cannot develop within a very short period of time is an assumption. This statement is not based on evidence.
“if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.”
Absolutely! And if we could establish that a Tooth Fairy really exists, then I would readily believe that it was she, and not my parents, who left quarters under my pillow as a child, while I slept with one less tooth.
If we could establish as fact that Jesus was the Son of the Creator, or even the Creator himself, then even I would believe in the Resurrection. It is the Resurrection that Christians use as evidence for the divinity of Jesus. We still are looking for actual evidence for the Resurrection. The expert opinion of mostly Christian Bible scholars, assumptions about how quickly legends can develop, assumptions as to the cause of “sightings” of Jesus, along with second century hearsay is NOT good evidence.
Dr Richard Carrier uses the development of UFO stories regarding Roswell as an example of how quickly ‘myths’ can develop. This real life example shows that they can spring up and become elaborate very quickly.
As someone else has said, there is a black hole in the history of Christianity between circa 30 AD, the date of the crucifixion, and circa 55 AD, the date of Paul’s first epistle. We have ZERO documents or texts—Christian, Jewish, Roman, or pagan—that describe the Christian movement during this time period. Zero. That is 25 years! Are we really to believe that a legend cannot develop in that time period, during the first century, when the overwhelming majority of people were uneducated, poor, superstitious, and desperate for hope?
Here is one possibility:
Jesus is buried in Arimethea’s tomb, but Saturday night, Arimethea moves the body with Pilate’s secret approval. The next morning the women find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. Within days, disciples and followers of Jesus are having visions, hallucinations, and false sightings of Jesus, as in their minds, the empty tomb MUST mean that he has risen. THERE IS HOPE AFTERALL! Mass hysteria sets in, and within a few years an embellished resurrection story has taken on a life of its own.
The average life span in first century Palestine was 45 years old. A disciple who was twenty in 30 AD would be forty-five in 55 AD. If copies of Paul’s first epistle don’t arrive in Palestine until 60-70 AD, a large percentage of the original apostles and most other “witnesses” to the crucifixion would be dead! Paul says NOTHING about the historical Jesus in his first epistle or in ANY of his epistles, so who is going to cry, “Fraud!”?
Someone alive and present at the time of the crucifixion would need to live until circa 70 AD, and, get their hands on a copy of “Mark” to be able to say that the Christians were mistaken or that they were perpetrating an historical fraud, and all or almost all of the witnesses would be dead by this time!
We have zero proof that anyone was talking about an empty tomb until the author of Mark mentions it circa 70 AD! There is no way to say that the empty tomb is historical fact. This assertion can only be made based on assumptions and the opinion of (mostly Christian) scholars.
Why don’t Christians see that the hypothetical scenario I have presented above is much, much more likely to be what happened than that the bloated, decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated by an ancient Canaanite god to walk out of his grave to eat a broiled fish lunch???
“I can’t see how any time-based physical universe or multiverse can have existed forever.” – Well, then I guess it can’t happen – that settles it then —
“Then we consider the historical evidence for Jesus, which includes what he did, what he said, what people thought of him and the basic facts about the alleged resurrection.” -There are no “basic facts about the alleged resurrection,” OR what he did and said.
“…empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend” – You’re calling 40 years, “early“? What eyewitness said the tomb was empty?
“…despite what skeptics say, it isn’t an outrageous thing to say unless one’s mind is totally closed to the possibility of God.” – Which god would that be?
Peter – I’ve written a piece regarding the death of Arius, the opponent of the “Trinity” claim at the Council of Nicea, 325 CE, who was outvoted and ultimately excommunicated. It demonstrate, just how elaborate myth-making can become. Regrettably, it’s 4000 words, and too lengthy to paste here. Suffice to say that his death progressed in the telling, from a normal, private, natural (though unusual) death, to a horrible, public punishment by an angry god.
“But what is interesting is to see what they add in and take out of Mark when otherwise copying his account word for word. Luke in particular changes the order of some events, apparently because it helps reinforce the theological point he wants to make.”
But that is exactly what biography, ancient or modern, does. It tells the basic story but selects events and how they are described to illustrate various points. What is more interesting is the amount of material that is in common across many sources – something we can’t check for many ancient biographies because we don’t have multiple sources for many of them.
Ancient historian Paul Maier: “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”
“My question is: if we know little details were changed deliberately, how do we know larger details were not also changed?”
Well you don’t “know” anything very much really, you could always be told lies or inaccuracies. But with four gospels compiled, it is believed, from maybe 6 independent sources, we have better ways of checking than for most history. But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for. And they say that, despite the difficulties, we can be sure of much about the life and teachings of Jesus.
“Dr Richard Carrier uses the development of UFO stories regarding Roswell as an example of how quickly ‘myths’ can develop. This real life example shows that they can spring up and become elaborate very quickly.”
An example in the modern communication age is a long way removed from first century Palestine. The common case from that time often quoted is from AN Sherwin-White, a classical historian, who said the biography of Alexander took centuries before legends grew. Here’s a reference.
So none of this is certain, but the gospels still stand as reasonable history, though not without their problems.
When I studied Church history, the Arius situation intrigued me. His theological position is not as actually far-fetched. Indeed the Church almost became Arian (like the Jehovah Witnesses).
That a large minority in the church supported Arius and adherents to his view continued for centuries show that it was a view with Scriptural support.
When I studied theology, the Trinity perplexed me. The more I tried to understand it, the more it seemed almost illogical. Christians are so used to it, I wonder how often they really think about the concept of three-persons in one.
The difficulty that Church councils had in resolving various theological positions in the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries show that the Bible is not at all clear on exactly who Jesus was (is?) and his relationship to God. There are clear statements in parts of the Bible, but the clear statements tend to contradict each other, and it is trying to reconcile these apparent contradictions that caused theologians so much angst.
The biggest problem I have is understanding if God inspired the Bible, why does it have such a human feel to it. To some people this is not a problem. The scholar Peter Enns argues that just as Jesus was human and divine so we see the same in the Bible. But this position troubles me.
If God does exist, then God can do what he pleases, but it still puzzles me that we have the Bible we have. I have spent more years than I care to remember trying to understand issues in the Bible, trying to reconcile them with a divine inspiration. Sometimes it was not that hard, but at other times trying to explain the ‘humanity’ in the Bible caused me much trouble. However much of this tension dissipates when I see the Bible as a wholly human book. It just makes more sense to me.
In the end the lack of sources means that the history question in regard to Jesus and the resurrection is unlikely to ever be solved. Some people say that they can prove Jesus is alive because they see him in visions and the like. That type of evidence is undermined by the number of devout Catholics who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary in visions.
So I keep coming back to the Bible. Raymond Brown in his introduction admits that virtually every scholar considers that the second letter of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter, despite claiming to be so. Factors like that cause me to question the Bible. Why would ‘God’ allow a forgery to be included?
Hi Peter, I don’t pretend to understand why God did things the way he has (I believe), but that doesn’t worry me as much as it may worry you. In fact, I’d be more worried if I thought I did understand it all! But here’s my thoughts.
Inspiration: in normal life the word means giving impetus and ideas, not dictating. So I think that fits the Bible.
This view of the Bible fits how the world looks. It looks like God created it and fine-tuned it for a purpose, but he seems to have given us autonomy in the world. My guess is that is because giving autonomy is the greatest gift he can give us – “If you love somebody, set them free”. So I think that is probably why the Bible is like it is.
I’m not a Catholic and I don’t believe what the Catholics do about the Virgin Mary, but I don’t think it is necessarily a problem that Catholics claim to have seen her. Of course I doubt many of the stories, but I don’t rule them all out. Here’s a story from a first hand documented account of a visionary experience. Two women were lunching together when one saw a vision of Jesus sitting in a vacant chair at their table. He looked like the stereotypes. When the vision had gone, she explained to her friend what she had seen, and then said “You’d think he’d wear normal clothes if he’s coming out to lunch.” Whereupon both women had the thought: “That is how you recognise me.” So I think often God caters to our preconceptions and limitations.
I don’t worry that much about 2 Peter. It isn’t fundamental to faith and it wouldn’t matter to me if it wasn’t there, it isn’t certain that Peter didn’t write it, and although it would be a forgery today if he didn’t, it wasn’t certainly so then. Some say pseudepigrapha back then could be a disciple of the apostle they followed honouring him and continuing to spread his teachings. There is quite a bit of uncertainty there, and my view of the Bible isn’t perturbed by that, though I can understand it troubling an inerrantist.
My belief in Jesus doesn’t require the Bible to be inspired, I just accept what the historians say it is. Like many christians these days, for me belief in Jesus comes first, belief in and about the Bible follows as a consequence.
“Then we consider the historical evidence for Jesus, which includes what he did, what he said, what people thought of him and the basic facts about the alleged resurrection.” –
And here we go – again with one of those pearlers.
This single sentence of utter presuppositional bullshit defines unklee’s insidious theological bent to a ”T.”
We have no contemporary evidence for the character, Jesus of Nazareth. None. But we do have the written words of one contemporary person, Philo. You would expect he would have made some mention of a smelly little eschatological god-man traipsing around Palestine performing miracles, sending huge herds of pigs to their death , walking on water, feeding thousands, getting right up the noses of the Pharisees and generally making a bloody nuisance of himself and then goes and gets himself crucified.
But no.From at least thirty extant manuscripts at around 850,000 words, not a peep. Not a whisper.
And he was connected as well.
Ah … but all the scholars say the character, Jesus of Nazareth existed, yes?
No, Carrier, for one does not.
And there are likely a damn sight more but they are currently keeping mum for fear of losing their jobs.
So there are no ”basic facts” at all. There is simply a tale of unsubstantiated supernatural nonsense contained in a collection of manuscripts books that are known to be spurious, contain interpolation and outright forgery.
for me belief in Jesus comes first, belief in and about the Bible follows as a consequence
And this is where the real problem lies, does it not, for without the bible there would be no record of this individual you genuflect to.
Thus, one is obliged to back-pedal once again and examine the veracity of the text, for which your world view rests, but which you claim is not crucial to your faith. Most odd
That you continue to dismiss the necessity for belief in ( numerous parts of ) the bible not only puts you at odds with much (most?) of the christian world but illustrates the fragility of the position you claim as ”fact”.
If there were any contemporary and/or first century writers of any discipline that mentioned the god man you worship we would at least have a non-biblical record
So the question remains, how much of the New Testament are you prepared to accept as ”not important to your faith” before you are prepared to accept that it is nothing but fiction?
And with no contemporary accounts of the character, Jesus of Nazareth this leaves you believing in a narrative construct.
Just read the latest reply from Fundamentalist Baptist Pastor Bill (trademarked) on your blog. I must say even though he is obviously hard-headed, he has one heck of a cool demeanor and patience thus far, as your replies to him tend to be less polite I would feel.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that he is starting to crack with “Gary, Gary, Gary, what are we going to do with you?”
I dunno, since you did mention that he is a good family friend and all, I would actually think the nice thing to do would be to put him out of his misery e.g. stop publishing his response as I suspect our fundamentalist friend is gonna embarrass himself more and more with his intellectual dishonesty. Not only that, I think he might simply just lose his cool and hence his respect from other readers. I believe both of us know that he’s not going to yield to reason and logic, and I think most readers would have already realized who is the reasonable one.
But I guess is just me, never liked to see civil people melting down a la Crown. I can totally imagining it happening with Pastor Bill in the next few posts if you keep this up. The bigger and better thing to do perhaps is to provide him a graceful exit before he starts ranting.
“When I studied theology, the Trinity perplexed me. The more I tried to understand it, the more it seemed almost illogical. Christians are so used to it, I wonder how often they really think about the concept of three-persons in one.”
When I was in seminary school, my historical theology professor quoted/paraphrased a theologian. He said something to the effect, “You don’t have to understand the trinity, you just need to accept.” I also know a number of Christians who hold what would be considered heresy: the don’t believe in the Trinity as it is too complex and unnecessary to subscribe to the Christian belief system. My position at the time was that I simply accepted it. Sure, I questioned its validity, considering how convoluted it is, but nonetheless kept any and all questioning to myself. Eventually, I came to the conclusion the same as when the Christians argue over the correct version of End-Times Theology: None of that Shit Matters (forgive me, but it’s a phrase I like to use often). It’s all an intellectual exercise of speculation, and does not pertain to the things that matter in the present moment of time.
But on to other things! To answer the question of wonder lurking in your mind: They don’t. Christians don’t really think about it. When they subscribe to it, they accept what they are told and only operate within the framework that they have been given – like a robot within the directive of it’s programming. The few that do think about it, wind up like me and many others – outcasts all the same, regarded as heretical trash and unbelieving rebels. Then again, you may already know this, your wondering being rhetorical, and I am just reinforcing a viewpoint.
Finding Truth 
Hi Carmen, my friend!
Yes, it is a really good article. I posted an excerpt and a link to it yesterday. Arch said he liked it and sent it to Nan.
I agree with Nan. Paul was a fraud…or mentally ill.
LikeLike
“Why were the Gospels written? We have no idea.” – I don’t think it was a coincidence that they all were written after the catastrophic event of the destruction of the second temple and the Jim Jones-style mass suicide at Masada two years later. It was a turbulent time.
(Interestingly, the Second Temple, after all of the work that went into it – when finished, 18,000 laborers were left unemployed – stood for only 18 years from its completion to its total destruction.)
LikeLike
What Ark said!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Paul was a fraud…or mentally ill.” – Or both.
LikeLike
Arch that sounds way too similar to the argument attributed to CS Lewis that Christians like to use concerning the identity/person-hood of Jesus.
LikeLike
Imagine the following:
An orthodox Jewish rabbi claims that on a recent drive on a lonely country road, a bright light stopped his car, told him that it was David Koresh, and told him that he (the rabbi) would be Koresh’s missionary to the world. This same rabbi then starts preaching a very modified version of the late David Koresh’s teachings, stating that he learned these new, “up-dated” Branch Davidian teachings from no living human being or book but by direct revelation from the dead prophet, Mr. Koresh himself!
We would lock this nut job up in a psychiatric hospital!
Yet Christians want us to believe, as historical fact, similar nutty claims of another Jewish rabbi living 2,000 years ago!
THEY
ARE
DELUSIONAL.
LikeLiked by 2 people
or imagine, if you can, that there was this guy names Joseph Smith who claimed that an angel informed him of a new revelation Jesus Christ… and that despite the odds, his cult still exists today.
hard to imagine, but what if, ya know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A careful study of the Gospel details show that the writers were prepared to change things around to suit their theology.
Virtually every scholar agrees that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But what is interesting is to see what they add in and take out of Mark when otherwise copying his account word for word. Luke in particular changes the order of some events, apparently because it helps reinforce the theological point he wants to make.
My question is: if we know little details were changed deliberately, how do we know larger details were not also changed?
For those who are interested, the following talk from Yale might cause you to think:
LikeLike
Hi Dave, I was responding to your question about where scholarship has advanced the christian religion, and I outlined four areas where there is evidence that this has happened. Whether the arguments built on these areas of scholarship are convincing is another matter, but I will try to respond briefly to your comments.
1. I can’t see how any time-based physical universe or multiverse can have existed forever. (a) you can’t count from 1 to infinity, so I don’t think it makes sense that you could have a physical chain of events from infinite past to now, and (b) and in infinite time, all physical processes must have come to an end unless perpetual motion is possible.
2. The multiverse only pushes the fine-tuning problem one step further back. If a multiverse produces bubble universes by some physical process, how does it happen that every one is random and therefore different, which is required to explain fine-tuning? The multiverse would have to be as fine-tuned as this universe has to be, as Paul Davies has argued. This paper is the latest peer-reviewed paper I can find on fine-tuning and it discusses the multiverse.
Now re your question about evidence for the resurrection.
Argued simply on its historical and philosophical merits, Gary Habermas and WL Craig have successfully argued in formal debates for the resurrection as the best possible explanation of the facts, but I have never done that. I think a cumulative case is more reasonable. It would go like this.
(i) From the sorts of things I have already mentioned, a case can be built for the existence of a creator God. You currently don’t accept that case, while I do. But you may perhaps be willing to agree that those arguments make the existence of God a reasonable hypothesis that requires further testing.
(ii) Then we consider the historical evidence for Jesus, which includes what he did, what he said, what people thought of him and the basic facts about the alleged resurrection. I think you know all I would reference here. Using only passages that scholars would generally regard as historical, a good case can be made for Jesus as divine. If we don’t believe God could exist, then we couldn’t come to that conclusion, but if we accept the possibility of God, then Jesus’ divinity is also possible.
(iii) Then we come to the basic facts about the resurrection – empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend, disciples highly motivated by the resurrection, etc. Again, if we rule out God, then the stories are impossible and that’s that. But if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.
(iv) Antony Flew said the resurrection was the best attested miracle claim in history. NT Wright, one of the most respected of current NT historians, and a christian, has written a detailed book which provides historical support and perspective on the resurrection. JJ Lowder, an atheist who helped set up the Secular Web, studied the resurrection and concluded “On the basis of the available evidence (and the arguments I’ve seen), I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection.” So despite what sceptics say, it isn’t an outrageous thing to say unless one’s mind is totally closed to the possibility of God.
So one looks at the cumulative evidence. I don’t think the resurrection stands on its own, but I think it stands very well in that context. There are many options, but the two most obvious are that God really created, humans really do have free will and consciousness, somethings really are right and wrong, God really does sometimes heal and make direct contact with people, and Jesus really was the resurrected son of God, or else naturalism is true, the universe just happened and was amazingly lucky to produce life, people are just intelligent animals with no free will, consciousness doesn’t mean anything, ethics are just what works, people who think they have been healed or visited are mistaken or worse, and Jesus was a failed prophet who lefts such a powerful impression that people thought he had been resurrected.
It is in that context that I think the evidence for the resurrection is good, it happened and makes sense. Others think differently. We each make our choice.
LikeLike
Hi Ruth,
“I don’t see how it doesn’t affect the atonement. Are the wages of sin not death?”
But neither sin nor death depend on the doctrine of Original Sin. They are both obvious facts of the world around us. Surely that is enough? I’m sorry, but I don’t understand.
LikeLike
“(iii) Then we come to the basic facts about the resurrection – empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend, disciples highly motivated by the resurrection, etc. Again, if we rule out God, then the stories are impossible and that’s that. But if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.”
False claim.
-Even if it is true that the majority of scholars believe that the tomb was empty, expert opinion is considered “weak evidence”, not fact.
-The belief that a legend cannot develop within a very short period of time is an assumption. This statement is not based on evidence.
“if God is possible and Jesus was divine, then genuine resurrection is a simpler explanation of the facts than any other.”
Absolutely! And if we could establish that a Tooth Fairy really exists, then I would readily believe that it was she, and not my parents, who left quarters under my pillow as a child, while I slept with one less tooth.
If we could establish as fact that Jesus was the Son of the Creator, or even the Creator himself, then even I would believe in the Resurrection. It is the Resurrection that Christians use as evidence for the divinity of Jesus. We still are looking for actual evidence for the Resurrection. The expert opinion of mostly Christian Bible scholars, assumptions about how quickly legends can develop, assumptions as to the cause of “sightings” of Jesus, along with second century hearsay is NOT good evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary
Dr Richard Carrier uses the development of UFO stories regarding Roswell as an example of how quickly ‘myths’ can develop. This real life example shows that they can spring up and become elaborate very quickly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As someone else has said, there is a black hole in the history of Christianity between circa 30 AD, the date of the crucifixion, and circa 55 AD, the date of Paul’s first epistle. We have ZERO documents or texts—Christian, Jewish, Roman, or pagan—that describe the Christian movement during this time period. Zero. That is 25 years! Are we really to believe that a legend cannot develop in that time period, during the first century, when the overwhelming majority of people were uneducated, poor, superstitious, and desperate for hope?
Here is one possibility:
Jesus is buried in Arimethea’s tomb, but Saturday night, Arimethea moves the body with Pilate’s secret approval. The next morning the women find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. Within days, disciples and followers of Jesus are having visions, hallucinations, and false sightings of Jesus, as in their minds, the empty tomb MUST mean that he has risen. THERE IS HOPE AFTERALL! Mass hysteria sets in, and within a few years an embellished resurrection story has taken on a life of its own.
The average life span in first century Palestine was 45 years old. A disciple who was twenty in 30 AD would be forty-five in 55 AD. If copies of Paul’s first epistle don’t arrive in Palestine until 60-70 AD, a large percentage of the original apostles and most other “witnesses” to the crucifixion would be dead! Paul says NOTHING about the historical Jesus in his first epistle or in ANY of his epistles, so who is going to cry, “Fraud!”?
Someone alive and present at the time of the crucifixion would need to live until circa 70 AD, and, get their hands on a copy of “Mark” to be able to say that the Christians were mistaken or that they were perpetrating an historical fraud, and all or almost all of the witnesses would be dead by this time!
We have zero proof that anyone was talking about an empty tomb until the author of Mark mentions it circa 70 AD! There is no way to say that the empty tomb is historical fact. This assertion can only be made based on assumptions and the opinion of (mostly Christian) scholars.
Why don’t Christians see that the hypothetical scenario I have presented above is much, much more likely to be what happened than that the bloated, decomposing body of a first century Jewish prophet was reanimated by an ancient Canaanite god to walk out of his grave to eat a broiled fish lunch???
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I can’t see how any time-based physical universe or multiverse can have existed forever.” – Well, then I guess it can’t happen – that settles it then —
“Then we consider the historical evidence for Jesus, which includes what he did, what he said, what people thought of him and the basic facts about the alleged resurrection.” -There are no “basic facts about the alleged resurrection,” OR what he did and said.
“…empty tomb, visions, stories originated very early so not a later legend” – You’re calling 40 years, “early“? What eyewitness said the tomb was empty?
“…despite what skeptics say, it isn’t an outrageous thing to say unless one’s mind is totally closed to the possibility of God.” – Which god would that be?
“We each make our choice.” – Indeed we do.
LikeLike
“False claim.” – I’m sure he gets that a lot.
LikeLike
Peter – I’ve written a piece regarding the death of Arius, the opponent of the “Trinity” claim at the Council of Nicea, 325 CE, who was outvoted and ultimately excommunicated. It demonstrate, just how elaborate myth-making can become. Regrettably, it’s 4000 words, and too lengthy to paste here. Suffice to say that his death progressed in the telling, from a normal, private, natural (though unusual) death, to a horrible, public punishment by an angry god.
LikeLike
Hi Peter,
“But what is interesting is to see what they add in and take out of Mark when otherwise copying his account word for word. Luke in particular changes the order of some events, apparently because it helps reinforce the theological point he wants to make.”
But that is exactly what biography, ancient or modern, does. It tells the basic story but selects events and how they are described to illustrate various points. What is more interesting is the amount of material that is in common across many sources – something we can’t check for many ancient biographies because we don’t have multiple sources for many of them.
Ancient historian Paul Maier: “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.”
“My question is: if we know little details were changed deliberately, how do we know larger details were not also changed?”
Well you don’t “know” anything very much really, you could always be told lies or inaccuracies. But with four gospels compiled, it is believed, from maybe 6 independent sources, we have better ways of checking than for most history. But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for. And they say that, despite the difficulties, we can be sure of much about the life and teachings of Jesus.
“Dr Richard Carrier uses the development of UFO stories regarding Roswell as an example of how quickly ‘myths’ can develop. This real life example shows that they can spring up and become elaborate very quickly.”
An example in the modern communication age is a long way removed from first century Palestine. The common case from that time often quoted is from AN Sherwin-White, a classical historian, who said the biography of Alexander took centuries before legends grew. Here’s a reference.
So none of this is certain, but the gospels still stand as reasonable history, though not without their problems.
LikeLike
Arch
When I studied Church history, the Arius situation intrigued me. His theological position is not as actually far-fetched. Indeed the Church almost became Arian (like the Jehovah Witnesses).
That a large minority in the church supported Arius and adherents to his view continued for centuries show that it was a view with Scriptural support.
When I studied theology, the Trinity perplexed me. The more I tried to understand it, the more it seemed almost illogical. Christians are so used to it, I wonder how often they really think about the concept of three-persons in one.
The difficulty that Church councils had in resolving various theological positions in the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries show that the Bible is not at all clear on exactly who Jesus was (is?) and his relationship to God. There are clear statements in parts of the Bible, but the clear statements tend to contradict each other, and it is trying to reconcile these apparent contradictions that caused theologians so much angst.
LikeLiked by 3 people
UnkleE
The biggest problem I have is understanding if God inspired the Bible, why does it have such a human feel to it. To some people this is not a problem. The scholar Peter Enns argues that just as Jesus was human and divine so we see the same in the Bible. But this position troubles me.
If God does exist, then God can do what he pleases, but it still puzzles me that we have the Bible we have. I have spent more years than I care to remember trying to understand issues in the Bible, trying to reconcile them with a divine inspiration. Sometimes it was not that hard, but at other times trying to explain the ‘humanity’ in the Bible caused me much trouble. However much of this tension dissipates when I see the Bible as a wholly human book. It just makes more sense to me.
In the end the lack of sources means that the history question in regard to Jesus and the resurrection is unlikely to ever be solved. Some people say that they can prove Jesus is alive because they see him in visions and the like. That type of evidence is undermined by the number of devout Catholics who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary in visions.
So I keep coming back to the Bible. Raymond Brown in his introduction admits that virtually every scholar considers that the second letter of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter, despite claiming to be so. Factors like that cause me to question the Bible. Why would ‘God’ allow a forgery to be included?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Peter, I don’t pretend to understand why God did things the way he has (I believe), but that doesn’t worry me as much as it may worry you. In fact, I’d be more worried if I thought I did understand it all! But here’s my thoughts.
Inspiration: in normal life the word means giving impetus and ideas, not dictating. So I think that fits the Bible.
This view of the Bible fits how the world looks. It looks like God created it and fine-tuned it for a purpose, but he seems to have given us autonomy in the world. My guess is that is because giving autonomy is the greatest gift he can give us – “If you love somebody, set them free”. So I think that is probably why the Bible is like it is.
I’m not a Catholic and I don’t believe what the Catholics do about the Virgin Mary, but I don’t think it is necessarily a problem that Catholics claim to have seen her. Of course I doubt many of the stories, but I don’t rule them all out. Here’s a story from a first hand documented account of a visionary experience. Two women were lunching together when one saw a vision of Jesus sitting in a vacant chair at their table. He looked like the stereotypes. When the vision had gone, she explained to her friend what she had seen, and then said “You’d think he’d wear normal clothes if he’s coming out to lunch.” Whereupon both women had the thought: “That is how you recognise me.” So I think often God caters to our preconceptions and limitations.
I don’t worry that much about 2 Peter. It isn’t fundamental to faith and it wouldn’t matter to me if it wasn’t there, it isn’t certain that Peter didn’t write it, and although it would be a forgery today if he didn’t, it wasn’t certainly so then. Some say pseudepigrapha back then could be a disciple of the apostle they followed honouring him and continuing to spread his teachings. There is quite a bit of uncertainty there, and my view of the Bible isn’t perturbed by that, though I can understand it troubling an inerrantist.
My belief in Jesus doesn’t require the Bible to be inspired, I just accept what the historians say it is. Like many christians these days, for me belief in Jesus comes first, belief in and about the Bible follows as a consequence.
LikeLike
And here we go – again with one of those pearlers.
This single sentence of utter presuppositional bullshit defines unklee’s insidious theological bent to a ”T.”
We have no contemporary evidence for the character, Jesus of Nazareth. None. But we do have the written words of one contemporary person, Philo. You would expect he would have made some mention of a smelly little eschatological god-man traipsing around Palestine performing miracles, sending huge herds of pigs to their death , walking on water, feeding thousands, getting right up the noses of the Pharisees and generally making a bloody nuisance of himself and then goes and gets himself crucified.
But no.From at least thirty extant manuscripts at around 850,000 words, not a peep. Not a whisper.
And he was connected as well.
Ah … but all the scholars say the character, Jesus of Nazareth existed, yes?
No, Carrier, for one does not.
And there are likely a damn sight more but they are currently keeping mum for fear of losing their jobs.
So there are no ”basic facts” at all. There is simply a tale of unsubstantiated supernatural nonsense contained in a collection of manuscripts books that are known to be spurious, contain interpolation and outright forgery.
Facts? No, not at all.
LikeLike
Well, if nothing else Peter, the Council of Nicea came up with a good product —
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this is where the real problem lies, does it not, for without the bible there would be no record of this individual you genuflect to.
Thus, one is obliged to back-pedal once again and examine the veracity of the text, for which your world view rests, but which you claim is not crucial to your faith. Most odd
That you continue to dismiss the necessity for belief in ( numerous parts of ) the bible not only puts you at odds with much (most?) of the christian world but illustrates the fragility of the position you claim as ”fact”.
If there were any contemporary and/or first century writers of any discipline that mentioned the god man you worship we would at least have a non-biblical record
So the question remains, how much of the New Testament are you prepared to accept as ”not important to your faith” before you are prepared to accept that it is nothing but fiction?
And with no contemporary accounts of the character, Jesus of Nazareth this leaves you believing in a narrative construct.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
Just read the latest reply from Fundamentalist Baptist Pastor Bill (trademarked) on your blog. I must say even though he is obviously hard-headed, he has one heck of a cool demeanor and patience thus far, as your replies to him tend to be less polite I would feel.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that he is starting to crack with “Gary, Gary, Gary, what are we going to do with you?”
I dunno, since you did mention that he is a good family friend and all, I would actually think the nice thing to do would be to put him out of his misery e.g. stop publishing his response as I suspect our fundamentalist friend is gonna embarrass himself more and more with his intellectual dishonesty. Not only that, I think he might simply just lose his cool and hence his respect from other readers. I believe both of us know that he’s not going to yield to reason and logic, and I think most readers would have already realized who is the reasonable one.
But I guess is just me, never liked to see civil people melting down a la Crown. I can totally imagining it happening with Pastor Bill in the next few posts if you keep this up. The bigger and better thing to do perhaps is to provide him a graceful exit before he starts ranting.
My 2 cents
LikeLike
Peter, in response to this:
“When I studied theology, the Trinity perplexed me. The more I tried to understand it, the more it seemed almost illogical. Christians are so used to it, I wonder how often they really think about the concept of three-persons in one.”
When I was in seminary school, my historical theology professor quoted/paraphrased a theologian. He said something to the effect, “You don’t have to understand the trinity, you just need to accept.” I also know a number of Christians who hold what would be considered heresy: the don’t believe in the Trinity as it is too complex and unnecessary to subscribe to the Christian belief system. My position at the time was that I simply accepted it. Sure, I questioned its validity, considering how convoluted it is, but nonetheless kept any and all questioning to myself. Eventually, I came to the conclusion the same as when the Christians argue over the correct version of End-Times Theology: None of that Shit Matters (forgive me, but it’s a phrase I like to use often). It’s all an intellectual exercise of speculation, and does not pertain to the things that matter in the present moment of time.
But on to other things! To answer the question of wonder lurking in your mind: They don’t. Christians don’t really think about it. When they subscribe to it, they accept what they are told and only operate within the framework that they have been given – like a robot within the directive of it’s programming. The few that do think about it, wind up like me and many others – outcasts all the same, regarded as heretical trash and unbelieving rebels. Then again, you may already know this, your wondering being rhetorical, and I am just reinforcing a viewpoint.
LikeLike