In my last post I linked to an article by Richard Carrier called “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story,” in which the author argued that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be substantiated by the extant historical data. At the end of the post I asked the question of whether Carrier’s claim really matters all that much, and for the sake of discussion I suggested that he might be right, and that the resurrection might not be something that, like Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, can be proven from the historical record alone.
Yes, I was deliberately being provocative.
My reason for taking this position, ironically, is apologetic in nature. My attention was drawn to Carrier’s article by a friend of mine who considers himself an agnostic. Now put yourself in my Rainbow sandals for a minute. If I insist, like Carrier’s debate opponent, that the resurrection of Christ meets the highest standards of historical inquiry and investigation (like Caesar and the Rubicon), then I am going to have to deal with the kinds of refutations of that exaggerated rhetoric that Carrier adduces. And if you’ve taken the time to read the piece, you’ll know that’s a tall order.
Perhaps it is a better tactic to say something like this:
“You know what? Of course the resurrection cannot be historically proven by an airtight, knock-down-drag-out argument or piece of evidence, but to expect such a thing is not only to demonstrate a level of skepticism that is unfair and inapplicable across the board (hence there’s a serious bias at work), but such an expectation also misunderstands the nature of Christian doctrines. Christian doctrines like the resurrection or the virgin birth are articles of faith, not articles of science or history (at least not for us since we didn't witness them ourselves), and faith by its very nature is opposed to sight. In other words, it doesn’t take any faith to believe that waters boils at one-hundred degrees Celsius, but it does take God-given faith to believe that Jesus is God (and rightly so, since the former claim is natural, and the latter is supernatural).”
After all, Jesus said that despite Thomas’s blessing for having believed after seeing, those who would come after him would be further blessed for believing without having seen at all.
Perfect text to bring in. If the historical evidence were air tight as many claim, wouldn't we in fact be in Thomas's position, that is, sighted with regard to the resurrection? And yet Jesus seems to be contrasting us with Thomas on exactly that point.
ReplyDeleteThere's a big difference between a thing that's reasonable to believe because there's some evidence for it and a thing which you are compelled to believe because of sight-like evidence, historical or otherwise.
There's also a big difference between believing a historical account is accurate because God tells you it is and believing it's accurate because you've tested it. They might be similar with regard to degrees of certainty, but they're not similar with regard to methods of the use of evidence.
This is also the difference between history and science. Science is about understanding how things happen in the natural world (an oversimplification, I realize). It involves observation and experimentation with a level of reproducibility. History is the study of past events or the record of the past. By its nature, history is not reproducible.
ReplyDeleteI can show you my children, tell you the stories of their births, even show pictures and birth certificates, but I can't give birth to them again. In history, unless you were an eyewitness, you have to trust that the sources are reliable or not.
As for the resurrection (or the creation,etc.) some are not going to believe regardless of what you can show them. I am not saying that evidence is useless, just that evidence alone will never be enough to a hard heart.
"Christian doctrines like the resurrection or the virgin birth are articles of faith, not articles of science, and faith by its very nature is opposed to sight."
ReplyDeleteI think, like Rachel said, you do need to be more careful to distinguish science and history. Yes the virgin birth and resurrection are articles of faith, but they are also historical assertions and are therefore subject to historical study. Perhaps neither can be proven in an airtight historical manner, but for historical claims, historical testing is fair (i.e., in principle DNA testing could have been done on Jesus to see if Joseph or anyone else was his father). No service is done to Christian faith when it appeals away from history. Not that that's what you're doing, but I think what you said can easily lead to that. And like Josh said, the resurrection may or may not be finally provable, but it's an explanation that fits the known facts.
It might be good to take a line from Wright here and say that Jesus' public vindication was not so much the resurrection but the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. The resurrection was relatively private, but it's the destruction of Jerusalem that publicly validated Jesus as a prophet, and that goes a long way towards making the claim of his resurrection credible, which in turn makes his virgin birth credible.
PS: Because, what did Jesus say to Caiaphas at his trial? "But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Which is a reference to Daniel 7, which speaks of the saints receiving the kingdom. When Jerusalem was destroyed, it was the believers who were vindicated and apostate Israel that was judged. The saints received the kingdom, because the Son of Man was at the right hand of power, because he had been resurrected. The chief priests did not see Jesus raised, but they saw that he had been right all along when they saw their city judged from heaven.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteI think, like Rachel said, you do need to be more careful to distinguish science and history.
Yeah, in my last post I said something like “articles of faith are different than articles of science or history, but I failed to make that distinction here. I’ll fix it (and thanks for pointing it out).
Yes the virgin birth and resurrection are articles of faith, but they are also historical assertions and are therefore subject to historical study. Perhaps neither can be proven in an airtight historical manner, but for historical claims, historical testing is fair
Yes, but this works both ways. If it’s OK to try to prove the resurrection historically, then it’s also OK to try to disprove it by those same means (which is exactly what Carrier tries to do). It seems no fair to moan about Carrier’s biases (as some have done) when we have the same thing going on in the other direction. Have you read his entire article? Do you concede that he makes any good points?
For my part, it would take a lot more historical evidence against the resurrection to make me disbelieve it than it takes evidence for the resurrection to keep me believing it, and that is a telling admission, I think.
No service is done to Christian faith when it appeals away from history. Not that that's what you're doing, but I think what you said can easily lead to that.
But if you’re going toe-to-toe with a true historian who presents the evidence that Carrier does, and if you cannot respond with counter-evidence of your own, will you recant the resurrection? If not, but if instead you maintain that the resurrection happened despite your having no answer to its detractors, then you are essentially admitting that you believe in the resurrection by faith and not by sight (read: history). And that’s OK.
It might be good to take a line from Wright here and say that Jesus' public vindication was not so much the resurrection but the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. The resurrection was relatively private, but it's the destruction of Jerusalem that publicly validated Jesus as a prophet, and that goes a long way towards making the claim of his resurrection credible, which in turn makes his virgin birth credible.
Now that it an interesting point. Where does Wright say this?
Jason, i enjoyed the last two posts quite a bit!
ReplyDeleteThe interaction between Jesus and Thomas is an important one, especially in John's gospel. When Jesus equates the blessing for 'seeing' Thomas and the hearing and believing folks to come it seems that he is affirming that they produce the same epistemic payout, but does not reject reliance of the one on the other (i.e. the truth of testimony depends on empirical witnessing). John seems to realize that his gospel is not enough to conclusively prove Jesus to be the son of God. Rather, he writes that we would believe (John 20:30-31; just after the Thomas incident). He even shows Jesus describing the various witnesses testifying to his identity in ch. 5. There are tangible historical occurrences which ought to produce faith, and on which all of our faith ultimately hangs. But, and this is what is wonderful about Carrier's opponent, the same can be said for the character of all of our historical knowledge. Certainly a higher degree of corroboration is gotten via coinage and multiple voices (as in Caeser's case), but no knowledge of a different type. At the end of the day, we are all asked to believe what we are told, whether about Caeser or Jesus. When faced with a credible testimony, the question becomes what other factors are at play in our ascribing to or rejecting a claim (or person!)
When it comes down to it, the issue is one of ultimate authority. Either God's authority is ultimate and what He saids in His Word about the Resurrection determines its veracity or Man is ultimate and his reason alone determines the truth of the resurrection. If the latter, then no proof for the Resurrection will be sufficient because Man will always suppress the truth about God.
ReplyDeleteI have to note that we could readily *see* that Luke Skywalker could *actually* deflect laser bolts while blinded and that there were many Jedi with magic powers running around the galaxy just 2 decades prior that implausible skeptic Han Solo (who would have been 10 years old at the time) probably should have known about. And like it or not, fanbois, there was a predictive science of midi-chlorians that gave the Jedi access to their powers which also probably would have been taught in comparative species and biology at schools on Corellia which would have been Solo's homeworld. Not exactly the faith lesson it at first appears.
ReplyDeleteI used to bulls-eye wamprats in my T-16 back home, and they weren't much bigger than two meters.
ReplyDelete"Yes, but this works both ways. If it’s OK to try to prove the resurrection historically, then it’s also OK to try to disprove it by those same means (which is exactly what Carrier tries to do). It seems no fair to moan about Carrier’s biases (as some have done) when we have the same thing going on in the other direction. Have you read his entire article? Do you concede that he makes any good points? "
ReplyDeleteOf course it works both ways, but that's a good thing - if it is true. We either believe because we are compelled to do so on the evidence (this requires a gift of confidence in the evidence only because we are wicked) or we have faith in faith and that is not faith in Christ. If we have faith in Christ any honest investigation (scientific, historic, etc) is going to be helpful even (or especially) when done by those that are antagonistic.
As for Carrier let's not try to find a way out. He says there is not enough historic evidence to believe in the resurrection. If he is correct we are to be most pitied, because we can't truly believe (have confidence in) the resurrection. Fortunately, Carrier is wrong. Simon Greenleaf's testimony of the evangelists is a classic example of evaluating the evidence as evidence. If Carrier wanted to make an intellectually honest contribution he could have taken the points made in this book and shown that the arguments are invalid. Instead he chooses "generally said" as his opponent and makes "generally said" look like a fool using a dishonest tactic. His tactic is a series of bait and switch moves:
1. Take the concept of evaluating the evidence for the resurrection (clearly implied in his title) and immediately make the focus with "as historically supported as xyz." The second is not really anyones concern, but it allows for the second switch.
2. Selectively choose evidence for xyz event that don't exist for the resurrection. Sure, lots of evidence for the resurrection is available, but let's start with evidence for event xyz and ask why this evidence isn't available for the resurrection. Then we don't have to address the evidence that is available.
His bias isn't a problem - all has to engage in an honest debate to be an ally.