A friend of mine recently drew my attention to a series of articles by Richard Carrier titled “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story” in which the author explains why he, as a historian, considers the proofs usually adduced by Christian apologists for the resurrection of Christ as being poor at best and specious at worst.
Carrier relays a claim for the resurrection’s historicity he encountered in a debate with Douglas Geivett:
“Nevertheless, Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, ‘the highest standards of historical inquiry’ and ‘if one takes the historian's own criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of the ancient world,’ as well-attested, he says, as Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. Well, it is common in Christian apologetics, throughout history, to make absurdly exaggerated claims, and this is no exception.”
Carrier lists five ways that the evidence for the crossing of the Rubicon and the resurrection differ in quality. He then says:
“It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the resurrection. In fact, when we compare all five points, we see that in four of the five proofs of an event's historicity, the resurrection has no evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not the best, but the very worst kind of evidence—a handful of biased, uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses. Indeed, you really have to look hard to find another event that is in a worse condition than this as far as evidence goes. So Geivett is guilty of a rather extreme exaggeration. This is not a historically well-attested event, and it does not meet the highest standards of evidence.”
Now my point here is not to debate the resurrection (which I and the majority of my readers affirm). Rather, I want to explore the historicity angle as a whole. The claim on the part of most Christian apologists—Reformed or not—is that what sets our faith apart from just about any other religion is the fact that it is based not on some alleged religious experience that some guru had in private—as the apostles testified, “These things of which we bear witness were not done in a corner.” No, it is upon an event that transpired in space-time history that Christianity is founded, such that our faith is actually falsifiable if that event can be disproven. Other religions make no such claim, and open themselves up to no such potential falsifiability.
That being said, however, the question is worth asking, “Is the historical case for the resurrection so strong that the unbiased seeker will be compelled to believe it actually transpired?”( I am not asking whether the inquirer will savingly believe the gospel, but simply about intellectual assent on the part of the inquirer to the historical fact of the resurrection.)
For the sake of discussion, I will put forth the thesis that the answer to the question of whether the historical data sufficiently proves that the resurrection happened is “No.”
Do you agree or disagree? And how much does it really matter?
Can I answer as a presuppositionalist and say that no matter how much data there is, it won't convince the depraved mind? The question is flawed because there is no such thing as an "unbiased seeker."
ReplyDeleteOK, Eddie, then why should we bother making a big deal about how our faith is based upon historical facts rather than inward experiences if those facts are by definition non-convincing without an accompanying inward experience?
ReplyDeleteWe should probably distinguish two separate claims:
ReplyDelete1. Christianity is founded on an event which happened in real history. If the resurrection did not actually, physically happen, we can have no hope.
2. The resurrection is historically verifiable.
Of course, lots of things happened in history that are not "historically verifiable." Many things are never recorded, and some things may be correctly recorded by a source which is just not historically credible.
So I think it would be a consistent position to argue something like this: If we apply the standards of historical research to Scripture, we cannot conclude that the resurrection happened (in other words, if we read the Bible like any other book, we would not believe its claims about the resurrection). However, Scripture is inerrant, and it claims that the resurrection happened in history, therefore the resurrection did happen in history.
I'm not sure if I accept the premise that Scripture cannot stand up to the historical method. It is obviously true of some parts of Scripture: no historian would take something like Genesis 1 seriously if he found it in a regular historical document. Whether that is the case with the resurrection is a more thorny matter. But I think the argument shows that our belief in a historical resurrection does not depend on whether we accept apologetic arguments founded on historical methodology. At the very least, they are not absolutely necessary: many believe without them.
I would also say "no." Maybe someone would accept based on historical evidence alone, that a man named Jesus existed, but accepting then the testimony of (supposed) eyewitnesses like the Apostles to his miracles, Resurrection, etc. is a leap I think few would make, even though there is some evidence for them.
ReplyDeleteJamie,
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements:
If we apply the standards of historical research to Scripture, we cannot conclude that the resurrection happened (in other words, if we read the Bible like any other book, we would not believe its claims about the resurrection).
and
I'm not sure if I accept the premise that Scripture cannot stand up to the historical method.
Help me out, willya?
And when you say, "our belief in a historical resurrection does not depend on whether we accept apologetic arguments founded on historical methodology," I can hear the agnostic crying "Foul" since now our so-called historical basis itself needs to historical proof (like Mormonism's historical civilizations that they say existed).
ReplyDeleteI agree. But it doesn’t really matter much since it’s probably only because I think you’re right.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, it does seem to me that it’s possible to so overcompensate against pietism and fall into such a sterilized ditch that I’m not sure what it would mean to live by faith instead of sight. Sufficiently compelling history (or apologetics) seem to correspond more to sight than faith. And what would all that stuff between Thomas and Jesus really be all about? But if the liberals elevate reason above Scripture and the evangelicals elevate experience above Scripture then I can’t help but wonder if Protestants should be about coupling faith with Scripture. And in such a way that isn’t antagonistic toward reason or experience but puts both into a sane perspective.
My point is that if faith is the category for Protestantism then we shouldn't be too afraid of the thesis that history isn't enough.
why should we bother making a big deal about how our faith is based upon historical facts rather than inward experiences if those facts are by definition non-convincing without an accompanying inward experience?
ReplyDeleteWOW, thanks JJS for that excellent question. That puts a finger on something I have found annoyingly amorphous about hardcore presuppers for a long time. I hope that gets fleshed out a little here.
To your general question, I wonder if there is a division to be drawn between
(a) Near the time of the resurrection, it was historically verifiable, because witnesses were still alive, etc., which explains why the bible was written the way it was.
(b) But today, given the small amount of surviving evidence, the resurrection is no longer "historically verifiable"?
I'm not sure if that is actually the case, or when the transition from (a)-->(b) would have happened, but I wonder if that is an epistemologically tenable situation for a Christian?
It seems to me like Carrier's main point isn't being addressed here. His point is not that you can't prove the resurrection historically, but that looking objectively at the historical evidence (or lack thereof in his opinion) would lead one to believe that the chances of it being an actual historical event are very, very slim.
ReplyDeleteI think "Anon" is correct (though I would ask him/her to please comment under some name or other), and I think everyone should at least take the time to read the "Main Argument" section of Carrier's article.
ReplyDeleteIs this better?
ReplyDeleteYep, thanks! It just makes it hard to have a discussion when there are several anonymous commenters.
ReplyDeleteEchoing the Zrimster's gist, I'd be in the "no" camp regarding the "question of whether the historical data sufficiently proves that the resurrection happened" as well. But, the key word is "proves". Folks now say they are looking for verifyible proof of things - largely through science, and in this case through history - yet scientific or historical proof often times proves nothing. My mother loves me. Can I prove it? No. Is it true? There may be no greather truth in my own life. I'm sure with some of you the same can be said of your love for your children. Can you scientifically prove your love? Nopie, but it's true... and most of all, it's likely more than sufficient. Oh that we'd have a resurgence in metaphysics. If only.
ReplyDeleteYes, it does matter, and I think anyone who shrugs this off and behaves as though it doesn't bother them is being disingenuous. Otherwise we are being hypocritical when we jump up and down when we hear of archaeologists uncovering Jericho, Solomon's temple, etc. If we can brush those off and say 'whatever' then I suppose we're also entitled to brush off the lack of historical record here. Otherwise, I think we should seek to understand why the evidence might be lacking.
ReplyDeletewhat's the criteria for a "scholarly" witness? But seeking unbiased and uncritical sources, doesn't that disqualify pretty much all pre-modern history? I dunno, but if someone were an eyewitness to the risen Christ, nail marks and all, wouldn't he likely become a pretty biased believer too? Demanding an unbiased source for such an event seems to be asking a bit much.
ReplyDeleteBut, Wheeler, what if some of us don’t go giddy when archaeologists claim evidence that either casts doubt or buttresses faith?
ReplyDeleteBut it’s not really a “brushing off” of historical data one way or another as much as it is a matter of faith. I expect that where it’s possible for biblical record and empirical inquiry to harmonize that it will. But sometimes it just doesn’t, and let’s face it, some things in the biblical record will simply never know empirical affirmation. The question in such instances is what to conclude? And if we place too much weight on empirical inquiry affirming biblical record (a sign of which might be jumping up and down when Jericho is unearthed), I think it’s arguable that we pave the way to unbelief.
Wheeler,
ReplyDeleteYes, it does matter, and I think anyone who shrugs this off and behaves as though it doesn't bother them is being disingenuous. Otherwise we are being hypocritical when we jump up and down when we hear of archaeologists uncovering Jericho, Solomon's temple, etc. If we can brush those off and say 'whatever' then I suppose we're also entitled to brush off the lack of historical record here. Otherwise, I think we should seek to understand why the evidence might be lacking.
I guess my point is that if the resurrection is an article of faith, then it is therefore not an article of science (or of history). It's simply not the same kind of things as "water boils at 100* celsius."
This is not to say that history or science cannot corroborate an article of faith, they can. But at the end of the day, Carrier's claim doesn't really bother me, partially because the whole project of proving that something didn't happen is very difficult, but also because the resurrection isn't supposed to be something that one accepts merely after enough historical investigation.
Darren,
ReplyDeletewhat's the criteria for a "scholarly" witness? But seeking unbiased and uncritical sources, doesn't that disqualify pretty much all pre-modern history? I dunno, but if someone were an eyewitness to the risen Christ, nail marks and all, wouldn't he likely become a pretty biased believer too? Demanding an unbiased source for such an event seems to be asking a bit much.
In addition, there's Carrier's dismissal of what we would call eye-witness testimony. Thomas saw the nail prints, but it was John who wrote about it (or was it?), and he wrote about many, many years later. Plus, we don't even have an original edition of John's gospel, only later copies.
Etc.
@Zrim: OK, as long as you promise *you* weren't jumping up and down. :)
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
I think it's different for us to say that something like say, the Genesis narrative, doesn't match empirical evidence. (And I am not simply referring to the literal 6 day creation--for which we can accurately respond that "the Bible is not a science book".) I'll agree that some things will be difficult to validate using historical or scientific evidence (this begs the question for Jason, based on your response: 'Does this mean we should not even try?'). Using Genesis, for instance, to look for areas where there is not a ton of evidence (crossing of the Red Sea, origin of the philistines, etc.) is not the same thing in my opinion as viewing more "recent" events with this intent. Isn't Christ's miraculous resurrection at least as historically interesting from a human, even Roman, perspective as Caesar crossing the Rubicon? Wouldn't it at least warrant letters, inquiries, interviews, stories, dismissals (documented), etc.?
I believe historians can forgive us for ignoring evidence or lack of evidence for the earlier events for some obvious reasons--I can go into it if you want, certainly Carrier implies some of it. Sure, the more hardline athiests might call it "brushing off", but most will let these things slide. But I kind of think that just playing the faith card here is a bit of a mistake. Paul certainly believed it was historically verifiable. Why shouldn't we take him at his word?
I am not saying it impacts my faith, but it ought to impact our response. Unless our only response is to ignore Carrier and historians like him.
Of course you have to assume Scripture is true if you in turn are going to believe in the resurrection. This, however doesn't help non-believers. Interacting with them on the basis of Scripture itself often leads us into presenting a case based on circular reasoning.
ReplyDeleteA person who is biased against God's word has no chance of believing in the resurrection solely based on scripture, short of God's leading him/her to recognize scripture as His special revelation.
However, there are questions a person can ask about the account that can perhaps persuade a disbeliever to think about it more seriously.
For instance, the Gospels record that the disciples didn't believe that Christ rose from the dead until He made His appearance to them. In essence, they were going back to their previous lives defeated, most likely asking themselves "what was that all about". Then Christ appeared to them, solidifying their belief and faith. After this, they fully committed their lives to Him and braved all kinds of dangers, including death to spread the word. Do you think they would have done this if Jesus was only crucified and didn't rise again? Why would they subject themselves to such persecution for something they didn't wholeheartedly believe in?
Reasoning like this is outside the text, but valuable for provoking thought.
rex
"I guess my point is that if the resurrection is an article of faith, then it is therefore not an article of science (or of history)."
ReplyDeleteWhy not? What precludes it from being both? It was a real event that occured in time. We can say that you won't find any real solid evidence because it has to be believed, not seen...but then I wouldn't recommend "historian" as a career for most Christians. :)
Regarding Jason's comment about having only copies of John's gospel. Actually we have thousands of copies of Greek scripture, all hand transcribed. If I remember right, they are in segments and remnants. The important point is that they all agree with each other in all that they teach, and are very very close in all that they say.
ReplyDeleteThis speaks to the veracity of the Greek we have today, and to how well God has preserved His word in spite of human failings.
It's also true that the chain of evidence reaches back much closer in time to the actual historical Gospel events than you will find in most other ancient historical accounts that most people readily believe in.
Another point... the "Bible" is not a book; it is a collection of historical writings written by different people in different times. Hence when someone says they don't believe in the Bible, you might ask which writing in the Bible they don't believe in.
rex
But I kind of think that just playing the faith card here is a bit of a mistake. Paul certainly believed it was historically verifiable. Why shouldn't we take him at his word?
ReplyDeleteWheeler, my guess is that you are referring here to 1 Cor. 15:12-19 where Paul says:
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
I can see how some would read this as an apologetic for historical inquiry to match biblical record. And I don’t have any problem with that as far as it goes. But at the same time, I really don’t think that is the main thrust of Paul’s words. I don’t think this is Paul’s way of daring skeptics to put faith to the historical test. What he seems to actually be doing is nurturing faith amongst those already persuaded but perhaps also wanting to disconnect faith, for whatever odd reason, from historical fact. And he seems to be saying that you really can’t do that, for to do that is to undo the claims of Christianity which actually leaves you a laughing stock but more importantly still in your sin. And that last point is what it’s all about. You aren’t most to be pitied because you are found to be believing in something that isn’t real (lame as that is) but because to deny the historicity of the resurrection is really to leave you damned.
That totally seems like playing a faith card to me as opposed to making Christianity historically respectable.
I disagree, because one of the reasons we believe Paul was because he believed what he saw with his own eyes. We have *faith* in Paul's *historical veracity*. Therefore why shouldn't we have an answer to what Paul claimed actually occured? At the very least, that's what Carrier would argue...
ReplyDeleteI want to be clear that I am not saying we shouldn't have or don't need faith. I just fail to see where faith and the desire for historically verifiable evidence are at odds with each other.
My point is that we should be able to engage with historians we disagree with. We can tell them that either: a.)There is evidence, and point them to it; b.)Dispute the criteria they are using to qualify what is verifiable; or c.)indicate that while they may be right, this is not a matter for evidence, but simply a matter for faith. I would argue that option c fails to be any sort of engagement. So when Jason posed the question, "does it matter...?" I would say, yes, it matters.
Consider Peter 3:15. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." That answer is Jesus's resurrection. Not, my faith in Jesus resurrection, but his actual resurrection. Do you disagree?
I disagree, because one of the reasons we believe Paul was because he believed what he saw with his own eyes. We have *faith* in Paul's *historical veracity*. Therefore why shouldn't we have an answer to what Paul claimed actually occured?
ReplyDeleteWell, what Paul saw with his own eyes is as subject to historical veracity as the resurrection. Someone could just as easily say, “How do you know Paul saw what he said he saw?” And the inquiries could go on ad nauseum. So what I am saying about the resurrection being a matter of faith can be said of Paul’s own testimony of seeing and hearing the risen Christ. And when you think about it, every claim being made depends on exercising faith at each prior juncture.
I want to be clear that I am not saying we shouldn't have or don't need faith. I just fail to see where faith and the desire for historically verifiable evidence are at odds with each other.
Wheeler, I’ve assumed what you want to be clear. I understand you’re not at all saying faith is negligible. By the same token, though, I’m not at all saying faith and history are at odds with each other. That’s why above I said that I expect that where it’s possible for biblical record and empirical inquiry to harmonize they will. What I didn’t say is where it’s possible for biblical record and empirical inquiry to harmonize and they don’t I really don’t care.
Consider Peter 3:15. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." That answer is Jesus's resurrection. Not, my faith in Jesus resurrection, but his actual resurrection. Do you disagree?
It is faith that fuels the answer. Only by faith can I utter the historical claims of the Creed. I’m not advocating a kind of fideism here but a faith that is tied to the historical event of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, but not only those events for their own sakes but also the implications of them, which is really what matters.
I hear what your saying, but it sounds like by this ("What I didn’t say is where it’s possible for biblical record and empirical inquiry to harmonize and they don’t I really don’t care.") then the answer to Jason's question for you is yes, it does matter. Because if there is ever a case to be made for a Biblically critical, historically significant event, then the resurrection is it.
ReplyDeleteI realize history isn't enough--Jesus made it abundantly clear that even the people who saw firsthand his miracles still wouldn't believe, so why should people 2000 years later? But we also have an easy time shutting down Mormons in part because of their absurd, patently false historical claims.
I completely agree with your point regarding the creeds. When I recite the Apostle's, in no way am I reflecting on how researchers may have found James's tomb. Because you're right, it is the implications, specifically his claim to be God, which can never be proven or disproven. But the fact that Christ walked, breathed air, was prosecuted, died, buried, and rose again are real events. I just don't want to shrug my shoulders and say "at least...they're real events to me."
The discrepancy between the two statements results from the fact that I was setting out a view I believe would be internally consistent, but which I am not willing to commit myself to. Some things actually historically happen of which there is no record. We don't know what Caesar had for dinner the day before he crossed the Rubicon. He was certainly doing something in real history, but no record has come down to us. I could imagine a professional historian saying "When I evaluate the witness of Scripture as if it was any other historical source, it does not meet the level of historical evidence I usually require to trust an ancient source. But since I know it is the Word of God, I believe that what it says really happened"
ReplyDeleteNow I myself do not accept this view exactly. I believe that a document like Luke does actually compare favorably with secular histories of the time which scholars trust. But I still think it is useful to make the distinction.
For instance, the case is far otherwise with a book like Job. It would be hard to take it seriously as a historical record of an actual person if it was considered as a secular source. But because it is the Word of God, I believe that there really was a man named Job whose family died in a collapsing house, etc.
And although we can make historical arguments for the resurrection, these arguments are not necessary for faith. When I was five years old, I believed that Jesus was born, died, and rose from the dead, all in real history. But I did not know any of the arguments to historically justify such a claim.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that we cannot or should not make historical arguments. We can and should. But ultimately, "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts (WCF 1:5)." Our faith does not depend on these arguments.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIf I'm too late to the game, sorry. Looking at Carrier's intro and his points after his 5 theses, I would immediately recommend Newman's Essays on Miracles as a serious rebuttal, which has Hume in its cross hairs (and all Carrier is doing is regurgitating Hume). To his points (numbered in relation to his criteria):
1. Why should we believe that autographs are more likely to be accurate than third party accounts? Who has more "in it" to prove a point? If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the whole project is over (according to St. Paul) and the Apostles could have stopped the Christian blood bath that ensued for 3 centuries and gone back to their normal lives. Speaking of letters, is 2 billion followers and the entire Western civilization enough empirical evidence to demonstrate the effect (story) of the resurrection?
2. Christians don't write about it for a while, thus non-believers don't write about it for a while. Let's be fair, Christianity for the first 50 years was understood primarily as a sect of Judaism with little or no felt "threat" to the Roman culture. The best Jewish historian we get (Josephus) is born after the resurrection, yet for some reason he is compelled to wrestle with the claims of the "tribe of Christians" (Jewish Antiquities).
3.No physical evidence of the resurrection? What might that include? No body? check. Empty tomb? check. Does he not know the story ends with the Ascension? Does he think the story goes, "and so the Christ was raised and died in a retirement village on the West Bank...and they made gold bullions with his visage impressed upon them"
4. We have an obscure Jew from Nazareth who is a part of a sub-culture within the wider Roman culture who gets less publicity than Ceaser.
5. The last point misses the mark and shows what a world looks like that has has thrown off everything Christianity gave it in the first place. Hospitals, Universities, manners...the list could go on of all of the effects of an obscure Jew who was crucified, rose and ascended into heaven. Historical evidence is not just immediate, and his last point brings that issue to bear. He is noticing that real historical events have effects, but I've never understood how a non-believer can simply write off 2,000 years of Christian history, the personal sanctification of its followers, authentic miracles, and the belief of rational people as an expected effect of an obscure Jewish man dying in a normal Roman way.
Yet, doesn't all of this just prove what St. Paul said, "To the Jew a stumbling block, to the Greek foolishness".
The problem isn't the evidence, but rather Carrier's assumption that the supernatural is as absurd as a talking dog or a flying saucer. He's a materialist masquerading as a theologian (he whips out sola scriptura, para. 18) who proceeds to tell us about how we can trust that the Scriptures evidence a growing "legend" about a resurrection.
Yet, Carrier is right that we need to make a distinction, and PBXVI in book 2 of Jesus of Nazareth points out that Christ did not merely rise "biologically", but was not a ghost, yet the encounters with him were not mystical. They burst "open the dimensions of history and transcend it." (p.273). It is exactly for these reasons that the Biblical accounts don't make sense in either a merely "biological rising" nor a "spiritual rising". The ways in which our Lord interacts with the disciples in the gospels transcends our normal categories of language (even historical), and for that reason make it hard to believe that the gospel writers were doing anything less than just simply reporting their experiences. In other words, who could think this stuff up?
Isn't it a fascinating fact that the resurrected Jesus was seen by the eleven and some of them doubted?
ReplyDeleteI hear what your saying, but it sounds like by this ("What I didn’t say is where it’s possible for biblical record and empirical inquiry to harmonize and they don’t I really don’t care.") then the answer to Jason's question for you is yes, it does matter.
ReplyDeleteJJS’s question wasn’t “Does it matter?” but actually “How much does it matter?” So, I would say that when biblical record and empirical inquiry don’t harmonize I’m not particularly bothered, which is another way of saying it matters but not very much, because come Sunday I’m still going to render my worship even though all of what I confess is by complete faith and absolutely no sight anyway. A very small contingent of believers had the luxury of sight, but the greater balance of us don’t have that. What we actually have are people we trust who have one way or another made the case and we, by grace alone, exercised faith in those claims.
But the fact that Christ walked, breathed air, was prosecuted, died, buried, and rose again are real events. I just don't want to shrug my shoulders and say "at least...they're real events to me."
Yeah, I get the hint about not wanting to go all Protestant liberal, but I think when we go to church every Sunday with all sorts of empirical claims countering our confession of faith (or at the very least not strongly affirming it), I think we have to admit that we are there because “those events are at least real to us.” I don’t think there is any shame in that at all.
rfwhite, excellent point. If some of us had the luxury of sight and still doubted it should give those of us who don't have that luxury pause about putting too much weight on historical affirmation.
ReplyDeleteZrim,
ReplyDeleteYes, as Jesus said to Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
But, admittedly, this is a different point than Jason has proposed for discussion.
Brent,
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the whole project is over (according to St. Paul) and the Apostles could have stopped the Christian blood bath that ensued for 3 centuries and gone back to their normal lives. Speaking of letters, is 2 billion followers and the entire Western civilization enough empirical evidence to demonstrate the effect (story) of the resurrection?
Just to play devil’s advocate, Carrier points out that people could have died for a resurrection they believed in but didn’t actually happen. Relatively few of the martyrs were eyewitnesses of the risen Christ, they just believed the stories they were told (and there were lots of fantastical tales going around back then).
The problem isn't the evidence, but rather Carrier's assumption that the supernatural is as absurd as a talking dog or a flying saucer. He's a materialist masquerading as a theologian
Yes, I agree, he will do all he can to redefine what counts as evidence in order to delegitimize the resurrection claims because they don’t comport with his worldview. But to be fair, all people do this. If someone comes to me with a Bible contradiction, I don’t think to myself, “Oh great, and here I used to really like the Bible!” Instead, I figure out a way to make the two seemingly discrepant passages harmonize with one another.
… the Biblical accounts don't make sense in either a merely "biological rising" nor a "spiritual rising". The ways in which our Lord interacts with the disciples in the gospels transcends our normal categories of language (even historical), and for that reason make it hard to believe that the gospel writers were doing anything less than just simply reporting their experiences.
Yes, there were times when I thought that Carrier did not understand the nature of the Christian claim about the resurrection. For example, he’d say things like, “The claim later became that Jesus’ actual corpse was raised, although Paul is clear that the risen Christ had a spiritual body.” But no Christian has ever claimed that Christ did not have a spiritual body.
My point in all of this, though, is to cause us to ask how we would engage an unbelieving friend who reads this kind of thing. If we overplay our hand with the whole Rubicon analogy we may end up sawing off the branch we’re sitting on, as well as turning Christianity from something divine and supernatural into something that anyone can believe if they have the right evidence.
It’s supposed to be unbelievable, is what I’m saying.
Jason, do you mean just the historicity of the resurrection, or all of our Christian beliefs?
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteLet's just consider the 11 apostles who were martyred. (all except the disciple who was commissioned to watch after Mary)
I agree overplaying our hand can be disingenuous, but so is overplaying "their" hand. I think we agree about the "unbelievable" quality of the resurrection as I said, "Who can make this stuff up?". PBXVI does excellent work on the resurrection in his 2nd book in the Jesus of Nazareth series, if any haven't read it I highly recommend it.
In dialogue (which I've had), if we first don't establish a shared criteria of evidence, no dialogue is possible. The philosophic debate has to happen first.
Wheeler,
ReplyDeleteI was talking specifically about the resurrection. It seems to me that the historical record can demonstrate its plausibility, but it cannot prove that it happened. If it could, then the resurrection would not be an article of faith, but rather one of science (and as such would not be supernatural, but only earthly and obvious).
Thus when we're dealing with an atheist who reads Carrier, we should say that his entire project is little more than complaining that one needs faith to believe rather than sight.
Yeah, we get that.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteDo you think your "world-view" compels you to delimit certain types of evidence, or rather do you see a way to reconcile data that is, in fact, reconcilable? A world-view doesn't require us to ignore evidence (like Carrier), but can change the way we view it.
Carrier's world-view demands that that the supernatural is always per impossible, which is an unfalsifiable claim.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSorry to comment so much, but your last comment was spot on, specifically when you say:
It seems to me that the historical record can demonstrate its plausibility, but it cannot prove that it happened. If it could, then the resurrection would not be an article of faith, but rather one of science
God bless,
Brent
JJS:
ReplyDeleteYou said, It seems to me that the historical record can demonstrate its plausibility, but it cannot prove that it happened. If it could, then the resurrection would not be an article of faith, but rather one of science (and as such would not be supernatural, but only earthly and obvious).
In your opening post, you refer to the phrase "the historical data" and here you refer to "the historical record." Let me asking a question for clarification.
When you refer to the historical data/record, does that record (do those data), by definition, include or exclude that which is supernatural? From your last comment it seems that the terminology "historical record/data" excludes that which is supernatural. Is that correct?
I'm not sure how to put quotes in italic as some of you do, so I'll have to cut and paste with quotation marks!
ReplyDelete"OK, Eddie, then why should we bother making a big deal about how our faith is based upon historical facts rather than inward experiences if those facts are by definition non-convincing without an accompanying inward experience?"
I think Postmodernism has something to share with us in these regards. Though there are different interpretations of data, there is still a data set that is being interpreted.
For the modernist's claim is that we have no actual data to argue from, while the postmodernist just writes it off as our perspective alone. Against the modernist, we assert the influence of perspective. Against the postmodernism, we assert the reality of reality outside of interpretation.
Therefore to assert both the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit alongside the historical reality of Christ's death and resurrection is simply to be consistent. All the while addressing the presuppositions of those we're interacting with.
I did notice though Jason that you seem to be setting faith and reason up against each other. Why must we follow this paradigm of Aquinas'? The resurrection is both historically true (an event in history, science) as well as miraculous (dead people don't rise, thus a matter of faith).
It seems that one of the main proofs used by Christians of the resurrection is the eye-witnesses which were martyred for their beliefs. (Any non-eye-witness who died for their belief in the resurrection isn't really proof of the resurrection, since they were merely dying for what they had heard, not what they saw. There have been martyrs in other religions who died for what they were told and believed, and it didn't make their religions any more true.) The fact that there are actual eye-witnesses who died for their belief in the resurrection is one of the strongest arguments for the resurrection and is usually the one that is most appealed to. However, Carrier deals with this argument in his article, and if he is correct in his assertions (which I am not sure about since I am no historian), then Christians have some serious issues to deal with.
ReplyDeleteSure, according to the Bible, Jesus was confirmed as a prophet by phrophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem. But if the record that states that Jesus said this can be proven to be written after the destruction of Jerusalem, then you've lost your ability to appeal to that record as proof that Jesus was a prophet. (Of course, a Christian will believe it, because they believe it is the Word of God; but to someone outside of Christianity, it's easily something that was made up after Jerusalem was destroyed.) The same is true with the martyrdom of the eye-witnesses. According to Carrier, there's very little historical evidence that the number of eye-witness martyrs that the church claims there were is anywhere near the church's claim. This seems to me to be a huge problem. Would your faith still be enough if it could be proven that there were no eye-witness martyrs who died for their belief in the resurrection? I don't know how accurate Carrier's claims are, but I'd love to hear someone who knows more speak to it.
rfwhite,
ReplyDeleteWhen you refer to the historical data/record, does that record (do those data), by definition, include or exclude that which is supernatural? From your last comment it seems that the terminology "historical record/data" excludes that which is supernatural. Is that correct?
What I mean is that which was observable historically, whether it is supernatural or not. So even though the resurrection was a miracle, the risen Christ eating with his disciples would be a matter of historical record for those who witnessed it.
Of course, the post resurrection appearances are matters of historical data for those who were there, but for us they are things we must receive based upon the testimony of others.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI did notice though Jason that you seem to be setting faith and reason up against each other. Why must we follow this paradigm of Aquinas'? The resurrection is both historically true (an event in history, science) as well as miraculous (dead people don't rise, thus a matter of faith).
I don’t think I’m doing that at all. What I’m doing is saying that reason is not enough. If all we have to go on is the historical record, then we will most likely disbelieve the resurrection since it’s pretty implausible if you think about it (I’ve never seen one myself). We also need divinely-given faith in order to believe a supernatural doctrine or miraculous event.
Thus when we’re speaking to the Carriers of the world we can avoid having to play his game by answering every point he makes, but instead can say something like, “Look, the resurrection is at least historically plausible. The fact that you won’t believe it has a lot more to do with other, non-historical issues than you care to admit.”
Jason,
ReplyDeleteGotcha. I thought you were arguing that since reason fails, we just need faith and not reason. Thank you for clarifying!
I'm not sure we'd even want to go down the "plausibility" road though. Doing so just gets into a debate as to "how much is enough" when it comes to defining plausible. As we discovered in Dumb and Dumber... "so you're saying there's a chance."
If you believe the resurrection happened in the past isn't that the same as saying that you believe the historical evidence presented to you about the resurection? And if you believe it so much that your willing to base your life (and afterlife) on it don't you believe it as confidently as you would need to believe someone committed a crime before you convicted them of it? If that is true then isnt it true that you believe the historic evidence presented to you beyond a reasonable doubt? Just trying to figure out how you can believe anything without evidence (not pretend to believe, but actually believe). Is faith more than reasonable confidence in the evidence presented?
ReplyDelete