I've been thinking over some apologetic lines of reasoning recently. I'll deal with them in more detail in future posts, but for now consider the following two statements:
- Thirty years ago Perseus tamed and rode the flying horse Pegasus.
- Yesterday Hercules captured the three headed dog Cerberus.
According to some lines of apologetic reasoning, the second of those statements is more likely to be true and accurate than the first. Apologists think that the closer the writing of the story to the date of the alleged event, the more likely it is that the description of the event is true.
Well that sounds reasonable, at first glance, but I think if you consider the example given above, the line of reasoning is quite clearly flawed. Neither of those events happened (at least not in recent history!), so neither is more likely than the other. The timing of the writing about the event is entirely unrelated to the factual accuracy of the story. Or in other words, a mythical event remains a mythical event even if it is claimed to have happened in very recent history.
The same, presumably applies to eyewitness claims:
- Thirty years ago I saw Perseus taming and riding Pegasus.
- Yesterday I saw Hercules capturing Cerberus.
Which of those is more likely to be true?
So when it comes to the gospels, the apologists think they have won the argument if they can demonstrate that the (eyewitness?) gospel writers were doing their writing within a generation of the resurrection of Jesus. Surely a document written in 60AD, a mere 30 years after the resurrection, is going to be pretty accurate, certainly more accurate than a late document written in the early 2nd century? Well, not if the document describes an impossible or mythical event. If the resurrection didn't happen, and a book was written one day after the claimed date of the resurrection, then such a book would be no more likely to be true than one written yesterday.
All this basically to say that arguments for an early dating of the gospels prove nothing.
All our experience tells us that in reality people can't walk on water, transmute water into wine, kill fig trees with a single word, and that executed men do not come back to life after being dead three days. All our experience tells us that these things can happen in fiction. A very, very early date for the gospels can never be sufficient evidence to prove that the impossible happened.
16 comments:
One possible argument is that the nearer in time the written gospel is to the event it describes, the more likely it is that some of the readers would be able to remember the event and correct errors.
That only works if there was a real event.
Eyewitnesses can correct mis-tellings of events that actually happened, but nobody can correct a 'mis-telling' of a fictional event. They weren't there to see it.
Of course, once a story has become established, then it can be 'corrected' by people who heard the story earlier, but that doesn't say anything about the authenticity of the original story.
Obviously if you take it as a premise that an event didn't happen, then regardless of when the event was recorded, it would still be false. This is called begging the question.
But if a community of people writes about what it witnessed last year, that is surely better historical evidence than if a community of people writes down what it was taught by its dead parents and grandparents.
But if the question is whether or not an event actually occurred, then the timing of the writing is largely irrelevant. A shorter time delay would (perhaps) give us more accurate details of an event, but couldn't help us answer the question of the historicity of the event.
As far as I can see, most apologists assume the event, so they're the ones begging the question...
1) Details are events.
2) You really think it's a "perhaps" situation that actual witnesses after a shorter period are better evidence than second or third-hand witnesses after a longer period?
3) I have not begged the question. You have. Let's leave the rest of the world out of it.
Which question have I begged?
For me the question is this: Was Jesus resurrected a few days after he was executed by crucifixion?
The apologist seems to think that if he can demonstrate that the gospel account was written close in time to the actual alleged event, then we can answer that question with a confident 'yes'.
But because the event itself is the subject of the question, and the event may never have happened, then the timing of the account writing (years after the alleged event, even by the most conservative estimate) is of no consequence to the question at hand.
Only if we establish (by other means) that the event actually occurred does the issue of the accuracy of the accounts come into it, and then (and only then) does the timing of the account matter.
The only possible means of determining that the resurrection likely occurred would be the historical record. (I suppose one could falsify the resurrection with archaeology, but one could never show it to be true.) I agree with you that the historical evidence is insufficient to make it rational to believe in the resurrection. Strong claims require strong evidence. In other words, I am not Christian (or religious).
But you do beg the question: You assume the resurrection is impossible. (I happen to agree with you.) Speaking more broadly, for an event for which we do not already have a logical or scientific reason to believe it must be untrue, the age and directness of the historical record is highly relevant. We almost always take first-hand accounts of ancient happenings more seriously than we take an account of, say, bardic poetry written down a century later.
(Please forgive the long comment; these topics cannot be addressed with glib one-line arguments.)
You seem to be mistaken about the implication of some arguments, or what they are actually trying to establish. Let's review:
You said,
1. Thirty years ago I saw Perseus taming and riding Pegasus.
2. Yesterday I saw Hercules capturing Cerberus.
Which of those is more likely to be true?
Based only on the date that the statement was made, point 2 is much more likely. Both you and the witnesses to the event are much more likely to remember accurately what you did yesterday than something that happened three decades ago. This is simply obvious. You are fallaciously falsifying the event using one method of logic (creatures from Greek mythology do not exist) and then claiming that this disproves a different method of logic (testimony closer to the event is more reliable). It does not.
You then claim, "So when it comes to the gospels, the apologists think they have won the argument if they can demonstrate that the (eyewitness?) gospel writers were doing their writing within a generation of the resurrection of Jesus."
You are equivocating "truth" and "reliability". No apologist with any experience at all would make such a claim. Early dating does not prove, and is not used as evidence for, the truth of the claims of scripture. Early dating shows the lack of variation in the text from the original autographs. In other words, it shows that the letters and words are reliable, not that the ideas contained in the text are true. A text can be reliable and not contain truth, but an unreliable text is hardly likely to contain a true account of what happened in the distant past.
Then you say, "All our experience tells us that in reality people can't walk on water, transmute water into wine, kill fig trees with a single word, and that executed men do not come back to life after being dead three days."
And I agree totally. Humans can't do any of these things. But that's not what the scriptures claim! None of these things were attributed to the power of a man, but to the power of God. To disprove that these things happened, you have to disprove that God can do these things.
If the text is reliable, as we know it is, if it can be dated early so that eyewitnesses could have debunked any errors it contained, then we are warranted in trusting the text. You call this "assuming the event", but this is exactly what we do when we evaluate any ancient text. We have more textual evidence to believe that Jesus raised the dead than we have to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. If the Bible did not make supernatural claims, then you would have no trouble believing it.
Of course, the Bible does make supernatural claims. But if God exists, there's no reason to deny that miracles can happen.
You might think this is circular reasoning: God exists because miracles happen, and we know miracles happen because God exists. But that's not what I'm claiming.
We have textual evidence from history, written by first-rate historians, that establishes that miraculous events took place in Judea during the lifetime of Christ. The Jewish authorities and the Roman government had every incentive to deny these claims, but they could not suppress them. If these stories were lies, then why were they not easily destroyed? Why would people willingly die for what they knew to be untrue? It seems from the evidence that it is likely that these miracles actually happened. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret them as one link in the chain of evidence for God's existence.
DWPitelli, the claim that "Strong claims require strong evidence" is fallacious. Winning the lottery is a rare event; yet only one ticket is required to prove that it happened. Why? The ticket is issued by a qualified authority. Further, if I claim that I dunked three basketballs in last night's game, anyone who knows me would realize that we were playing with 7 foot rims, or that I was lying. If Michael Jordan made the same claim, then no one would think it odd at all.
If the claim was that Jesus rose from the dead under natural conditions, then you would be correct to assume the impossibility of the resurrection. But the claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
One must investigate this claim the same way as the case for miracles, for saying that "God exists because Jesus was resurrected" and "Jesus resurrected because God exists" is also a circular argument. So look at the evidence from history; given the assumption that God exists, is the resurrection hypothesis the best explanation for the evidence we have for what happened surrounding the death of Christ and the events afterward?
I've looked at every proposed natural explanation for those events that I can find, and the only reason that I see to reject the resurrection hypothesis is a presumption that supernatural events cannot happen.
Hi TL, thanks for the comments. This will probably take a few comment parts in response...
You say: ”No apologist with any experience at all would make such a claim. Early dating does not prove, and is not used as evidence for, the truth of the claims of scripture.”
Yes it is. The last two apologetics books I have read both used early dating as part of a ‘cumulative case’ for the accuracy and authenticity of the gospel stories. The apologist thinks that if he can get you to accept an early date for the gospels, then he is halfway to getting you to accept that this is eyewitness testimony.
”Early dating shows the lack of variation in the text from the original autographs.”
No. It says nothing about that. Here we are talking about the dating of the original autographs. Given that we have next to nothing, in terms of extant manuscripts, before the end of the 2nd century, early dating of the autographs actually would introduce a longer ‘tunnel period’ for potential changes than late dating would. I think you’re getting your arguments mixed up here.
”A text can be reliable and not contain truth, but an unreliable text is hardly likely to contain a true account of what happened in the distant past.”
Indeed. Well, partially right. I’m not sure I would call a false text ‘reliable’, it may be an accurate transcription of an earlier original, but not ‘reliable’.
”If the text is reliable, as we know it is, if it can be dated early so that eyewitnesses could have debunked any errors it contained, then we are warranted in trusting the text.”,
Well, we don’t know that its reliable, or indeed early. That’s rather the point of the whole discussion.
Part 2:
”We have more textual evidence to believe that Jesus raised the dead than we have to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. If the Bible did not make supernatural claims, then you would have no trouble believing it.”
Ha! I’ve used the same argument myself more than once! Its nonsense. Sure, we only know of Caesar crossing the Rubicon from one or two very biased ancient texts, but that (textually dubious) claim is more than supported by other evidence - political changes in the Roman republic that we know about from other sources, Caesar’s rise to power, etc. There is plenty of physical evidence that Caesar became emperor. The crossing the Rubicon thing makes sense in the context of the other evidence, so there really is no reason to doubt it.
And if the Bible did not make supernatural claims, I would never have read it or even considered believing in it. It is the supernatural claims that make it worthy of scrutiny, to decide whether or not it is worth believing, or whether it should be rejected. As you can tell, at this point in my ‘journey’ I just don’t think the evidence is good enough.
”We have textual evidence from history, written by first-rate historians, that establishes that miraculous events took place in Judea during the lifetime of Christ.”
At best, modern scholars say that only Luke was writing like a historian, and even that is disputed. The other three gospels are not considered to be written by ‘first-rate’ anythings.
The gospels claim that miraculous events took place. They do not establish this. This is really my point, they simply are not good enough evidence to establish anything.
And now you go onto a string of standard apologetic tosh:
”The Jewish authorities and the Roman government had every incentive to deny these claims, but they could not suppress them. If these stories were lies, then why were they not easily destroyed? Why would people willingly die for what they knew to be untrue?”
Sigh. All this has been debunked and destroyed by folk like D.F. Strauss nearly two hundred years ago! Why should the Romans bother to deny religious claims made by a tiny minority of folk, almost all of whom, for the first century or so, were illiterate slaves? Its only the bible that claims that thousands of people were converting on a daily basis, secular history shows that Christianity was insignificant until the early 2nd century. As far as we can tell, Christians weren’t ejected from the Jewish synagogues until the very end of the 1st century, at the earliest. The Jews and Romans had no incentive to do anything about Christianity until at least two generations after the alleged resurrection, by which time its impossible to confirm or deny any claims.
And who said anybody died for what they knew to be untrue? The martyrdom stories of the apostles are part of stories which claim some highly legendary things. They’re not in the ‘reliable’ bible.
Beyond that, people of all religions are prepared to die for what they believe in. This does not in any way validate the truth of their claims.
Part 3:
”the claim that "Strong claims require strong evidence" is fallacious.”
No its not.
Suppose you went to your local store and came back and told me you had met your friend John there, I’d need no evidence beyond your word to believe that. But if my life somehow depended on it, I’d need a whole lot more evidence.
But suppose you came back from the store and told me you’d met Barack Obama, I might at first disbelieve you - why should he be at your local store? - but you could probably persuade me with a few extra details.
Now, suppose you came back from the store and you told me you’d met both Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin there, and what’s more they were holding hands, and there were no bodyguards or anyone else with them, and what’s more they looked very much in love. Would you be able to persuade me with details? I doubt it. I’d need a lot more than that. Even if you had video footage from multiple sources I’d still believe that this was some kind of hoax, and Obama and Putin were really actors. Basically, I wouldn’t trust your interpretation of the data perceived by your own eyes. And yet you'd be claiming nothing actually impossible occurred.
Suppose we go more outlandish and your claim was that you'd seen Abraham Lincoln there, holding hands with Gandhi... could any discussion persuade me of this? No. Any video footage? No. Even if I was there and saw it for myself, would I really believe it? No. Because the claimed event is totally impossible. In order to actually believe this, I'd need to be shown convincing proof of either resurrection or time travel, as well as a good explanation of why them, and why here. The demonstration of resurrection or time travel would have to be able to work again, in other circumstances, with other people, and be verified by known and respected scientists, politicians, etc. The word of a handful of unnamed writers would simply not be good enough. Would it? So why is this "first-rate" evidence for you with regard to the bible?
The evidence is simply not good enough to believe.
I don't discount the miraculous. I am, at this stage in my 'journey', relatively agnostic on the God question. I don't know if there is a God or not, but I hold it as a real possibility. But my study of the bible stories has led me to the point of believing that even if there is a God, he had nothing to do with the alleged resurrection of a carpenter from Nazareth about 2000 years ago. That story is built on flimsy evidence. That story seems to bear all the hallmarks of fictional legend.
"I've looked at every proposed natural explanation for those events that I can find, and the only reason that I see to reject the resurrection hypothesis is a presumption that supernatural events cannot happen."
I don't reject the hypothesis out of hand. Its just that the evidence, such as it is, is much more consistent with the hypothesis that the story is fiction than it is with the hypothesis that the resurrection occurred.
I think that'll do for now.
”Early dating shows the lack of variation in the text from the original autographs.”
"No, it says nothing about that."
Wow! I really need to slow down when I'm writing a post and pay attention to what I write! Let's try this again, and I'll try to keep my points straight this time--
The evidence to which I referred actually comes logically before the argument from early dating. Scholars have estimated that less than, I believe, 2% of the text is actually in dispute. Most of the "errors" in the text are simply transposed words and letters, alternate spellings, etc.; none of which actually change the meaning of the text. In the rare instances where the meaning has been changed, none of the changes impact any major doctrine of scripture. This is true across over 6000 manuscripts. We have no other ancient work that is so well sourced. Beyond the sources for the New Testament itself, we have quotations and explanations written by the early church fathers... those who studied under the apostles... that also corroborate the doctrines held in the New Testament. The evidence shows that we have, with a very high degree of certainty, the text as it was originally written.
The evidence of early dating works hand in hand with this:
"The last two apologetics books I have read both used early dating as part of a ‘cumulative case’ for the accuracy and authenticity of the gospel stories."
Yes, of course. The key word is "cumulative". If you were prosecuting a murder, you might not present a single footprint found outside a window as conclusive proof that your suspect was guilty. But why, if that evidence seamlessly fits into a larger body of evidence would it not be valid to cite it as a part of the cumulative case?
The closer the original autographs are created chronologically relative to the source events:
1. The less opportunity there is for legendary accretion.
2. The greater chance there is for eyewitnesses to purge the document of any error or to validate its truth.
Imagine what would happen if someone today who was in the Kennedy administration back in the 1960's wrote down exactly the stories written in the New Testament, but instead of Jesus, they cast John F. Kennedy as the central character.
In addition to this, let's assume that those who hold these claims are subject to ostracism, beatings, and even death unless they recant. There's little incentive in terms of power or money to follow this path. How long would this movement last?
"JFKanity" would never even get off the ground!
1. The founders who wrote these "scriptures" would know that what they wrote was a lie. You say, "people of all religions are prepared to die for what they believe in." And that's true. However, why would these men willingly die for what they know to be a lie?
2. Others who knew JFK are still around to confirm or deny the truth of the stories.
3. There is no "back story" of prophecy fulfilled by JFK (including events such as the time and place of his birth, manner of death, etc.) that points to JFK being the Son of God as there is with Jesus in the Old Testament.
You say that we know that Caesar became emperor; we also know that some event led to the birth of the Christian church. You infer that the evidence lends credibility to the accounts of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Likewise, the existence of the church lends credibility to the accounts in the Bible.
The martyrdom stories of the apostles are part of stories which claim some highly legendary things. They’re not in the ‘reliable’ bible.
Paul wrote at least 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He started his career as an enemy of Christ, persecuting and hating the very cause that he would come to champion. He was responsible for or complicit in the deaths of many Christians, including Stephen, before his own conversion (and these events were very early in the history of the church). After his conversion, he was himself beaten repeatedly, stoned, shipwrecked, bitten by venomous serpents, and finally beheaded--and the majority of these events are documented in the Bible.
Why would any man willingly suffer those things for a lie?
"I don't reject the hypothesis out of hand. Its just that the evidence, such as it is, is much more consistent with the hypothesis that the story is fiction than it is with the hypothesis that the resurrection occurred."
In this case, I'm curious... what do you think really happened? What other explanation better explains what we know happened? Most scholars agree that, at a minimum:
* Jesus Existed
* He was reported to have performed miracles
* He was crucified
* He was buried in a borrowed tomb
* The tomb was found to be empty less than a week later
* He was reported to have risen from the dead
* Many of his disciples believed without question that they saw, ate, and conversed with him
* These things happened in a localized area, not hundreds of miles away from where he died
* The Christian church was founded
* The earliest Christians were devout Jews before their conversion
* Ancient Judaism had no concept of a dying messiah
* To the Jews, worshipping any other God than the God of Abraham was punishable by death and damnation
* The early Christians changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, a violation of Jewish law
What is your explanation for these events?
Terry, your example of JFKism is not anything like a parallel. JFK was an internationally known character in a world with TV, newspapers, etc. not some unheard-of parochial wandering teacher in a backwater country.
And your list of 'facts' all presuppose the accuracy of the gospel accounts. If we discount (for a moment) the gospel accounts, the ONLY things we know about Jesus are that a religious group believed in a character called Jesus Christ, a miracle worker who died and 'was raised' (whatever that means, it doesn't necessarily imply resurrection as we understand it today) and is now a heavenly being. There are characters in other religions that tick the same boxes, do you believe in them too?
How do you explain the foundation of Rome if Romulus and Remus never existed?
Every religion has elements like this. Why is Christianity different?
(Anyway, more thoughts to follow later, I'm in a hurry now...)
"Paul wrote at least 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He started his career as an enemy of Christ, persecuting and hating the very cause that he would come to champion. He was responsible for or complicit in the deaths of many Christians, including Stephen, before his own conversion (and these events were very early in the history of the church). After his conversion, he was himself beaten repeatedly, stoned, shipwrecked, bitten by venomous serpents, and finally beheaded--and the majority of these events are documented in the Bible."
Wow. This is heading in the direction of a post that I have semi-written which will appear in due course, and so I'm not going to steal my own thunder too much... but...
1) There is a vast amount of evidence to suggest that Paul did not write at least half of the epistles attributed to him. Compare Romans with Ephesians - totally different writing styles, totally different presentational approaches; looks very much like a two completely different writers. If one was Paul, then the other wasn't. Similarly with the Pastoral epistles - these are by a third writer. Some go as far as to claim (with pretty good reasoning) that none of the letters are written by Paul. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it is odd that Paul seems to write a lot, and yet Acts, which chronicles most of his converted life, doesn't record him as writing anything at all. Do you not find that odd?
2) Half of your 'facts' about Paul there aren't attested in the letters he allegedly wrote. They all come from Acts, which bears all the hallmarks of being a fictional account, created to make Peter look as good as Paul and Paul look as good as Peter.
3) Even if we accept that Paul wrote most of the stuff claimed for him, and accept the traditional timings, we are still left with a big problem. Paul never met Jesus except in visions, and he got his gospel 'from the Lord' in visions only. There is no connection between the historical Jesus and the gospel of Paul. So the 'early' dating of Paul's letters says nothing about what happened on the first Easter, or even if there was a first Easter. Furthermore, Paul says nothing about Jesus doing any miracles, and gives no biographical info about him. Being 'born of a woman' hardly counts as a biographical detail.
Post a Comment