Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More on selective hyperskepticism — answering the “Jesus never existed” historical fallacy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It is important, as we go on to deal with understanding the deadlock on discussions about design theory, to understand how many evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers address evidence and reasoning.

For example, in recent weeks, here at UD, we have had to address how not even self-evident first principles of reason are regarded by many objectors to design thought.

Similarly, once record (or testimony) does not fit the preferred narrative, it is going to be dismissed as inadequate and/or delusional or as suspected of fakery.  In effect, after all, our senses and perceptions are not utterly reliable, so if something does not fit the lab coat clad evolutionary materialist narrative, something must be wrong.

The case of Jesus of Nazareth is emblematic, as it is frequently projected that there is insufficient evidence to ground the bare existence of such a figure.

For instance, we can find the dean of the New Atheists, Dr Richard Dawkins (late of Oxford University) in an interview with the September 2012 Playboy magazine (HT: UD News):

DAWKINS: The evidence [Jesus] existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real. Even if he’s fictional, whoever wrote his lines was ahead of his time in terms of moral philosophy.
PLAYBOY: You’ve read the Bible.
DAWKINS: I haven’t read it all, but my knowledge of the Bible is a lot better than most fundamentalist Christians’.

Of course, this confident manner, breezy and contemptuous dismissal is the very opposite to what Paul wrote c. 55 AD, to the Corinthians regarding the core facts of the gospel transmitted to him through the official testimony communicated by Peter, James, John and other leading witnesses in Jerusalem, c. 35 – 38 AD. Testimony and record sealed in the blood of the martyrs.

In this context, it is worth the while to first pause and view Strobel’s 101 level summary presentation on The Case for Christ, as a first level response to the arguments that the world’s most famous carpenter and itinerant preacher never existed, or the like skeptical arguments:

[vimeo 17960119]

This is of course just a preliminary.

Likewise, dismissive skeptics would be well advised to pause and ponder Morison’s challenge in his famous, Who Moved the Stone, before they trash their own credibility as reasonable and responsible thinkers:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus’ resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .

Why did it win? . . . .

We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not – how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] – we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 – 115.]

In this context, we should ponder Simon Greenleaf (a founding figure for the modern theory of evidence) on what he termed the error of the skeptic, viz., what I have descriptively labelled selective hyperskepticism, in his Testimony of the Evangelists:

. . . the subject of inquiry [i.e. evidence relating to the credibility of the New Testament accounts] is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical proof. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error . . . In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect [mathematically/logically] demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic [–> what I have descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism] consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . .

Greenleaf went on to provide some tested, glorified common sense, long since court case tested rules of evidence, as summarised in the same Testimony of the Evangelists; on the strength of his magisterial Treatise on Evidence:

1] THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS RULE: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [p.16.]

3] On Inquiries and Reports: If [a report] were “the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned” it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25. Cf here especially the archaeologically well supported, historical backbone of the NT, Luke-Acts, given Luke’s famous preface and thesis statement at the beginning of Luke Ch 1: “1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.]

4] Probability of Truthfulness: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.]

5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [in British usage, the man in the Clapham Bus Stop], beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 – 9.]

6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29]

7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.]

8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 – 4.]

9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.]

10] Marks of false vs true testimony: a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . Therefore, it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain test[s] of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation, if it were false . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 – 40.]

12] The degree of coherence expected of true witnesses: substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. [p.34. All cites from The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995). The First Easter’s timeline gives a good case in point, given the focal issue here. You may find it profitable to also examine Edwin Yamauchi’s review and W L Craig’s remarks on the resurrection vs the current version of the hallucination hypothesis. Craig’s critical assessment of the Jesus Seminar is also well worth the time to read it.]

In this context, Habermas’ UCSB lecture on the minimal facts is well worth viewing:

[youtube ay_Db4RwZ_M]

Also, Paul Maier on the historicity of Jesus vs fashionable skeptical narratives:

[youtube XAN3kQHTKWI]

It is further worth a pause to note Paul Barnett’s summary of the record of early non-Christian sources on the basic facts of the early Christian movement and particularly the existence of Jesus as an historical figure:

On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90’s AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90’s)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:

  1. Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 – 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 – 36). [Tacitus]
  2. The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
  3. Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
  4. His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
  5. He was called “the Christ.” [Josephus]
  6. His followers were called “Christians.” [Tacitus, Pliny]
  7. They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
  8. It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
  9. His brother was James. [Josephus]

[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 – 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]

A video presentation on such extra-bliblical support:

[youtube 4bLlpiWh9-k]

Likewise, we can trace and summarise the chain of custody of the NT accounts, thanks to McDowell and Wilson:

The chain of custody on the NT
The chain of custody on the NT

Cumulatively, the weight of textual evidence for the NT is overwhelming relative to the rest of classical literature, and grounds the authenticity of the text beyond reasonable dispute. The credibility of the basic narrative rests on the patent fact that it is eyewitness lifetime record, maintained in many cases at the price of peacefully surrendering one’s life to judicial murder or mob lynching rather than deny solemn, sacred trust of truth. A testimony that within a generation shook the foundations of Rome and drew the ire of the demonically mad emperor Nero, as the Christian movement grew and became unstoppable. All, backed up by a pattern of archaeological-historical confirmation and support summed up by Craig Evans in his 2004 Benthal public lecture:

The story told in the New Testament Gospels—in contrast to the greatly embellished versions found in the Gospel of Peter and other writings— smacks of verisimilitude. The women went to the tomb to mourn privately and to perform duties fully in step with Jewish burial customs. They expected to find the body of Jesus; ideas of resurrection were the last thing on their minds. The careful attention given the temporary tomb is exactly what we should expect. Pious fiction—like that seen in the Gospel of Peter— would emphasize other things. Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, but it can and has shed important light on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death, burial, and missing corpse . . . .

Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.

In this context, it is finally worth doing some summing up on the minimal facts:

The minimal facts method only uses sources which are multiply attested, and agreed to by a majority of scholars (ranging from atheist to conservative). This requires that they have one or more of the following criteria which are relevant to textual criticism:

  1. Multiple sources – If two or more sources attest to the same fact, it is more likely authentic
  2. Enemy attestation – If the writers enemies corroborate a given fact, it is more likely authentic
  3. Principle of embarrassment – If the text embarrasses the writer, it is more likely authentic
  4. Eyewitness testimony – First hand accounts are to be prefered
  5. Early testimony – an early account is more likely accurate than a later one

Having first established the well attested facts, the approach then argues that the best explanation of these agreed to facts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . . [Source: “Minimal facts” From Apologetics Wiki. Full article: here. (Courtesy, Wayback Machine.)]

Why is that so?

The easiest answer is to simply list the facts that meet the above criteria and are accepted by a majority to an overwhelming majority of recent and current scholarship after centuries of intense debate:

[THE TWELVE “MINIMAL FACTS”]

1. Jesus died by crucifixion [–> which implies his historicity!].

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). [–> Note, the fact-finding is a cautious statement as to what the disciples believed based on their individual and collective experiences; this is not a miracle claim]

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. [–> dating to the 30’s AD, per the consensus on the source and timing of the recorded (c. AD 55) creedal summary with identified lead witnesses found in 1 Cor 15:1 – 11]

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

[Cf. Habermas’ paper here and a broader more popular discussion here. NT Wright’s papers here and here give a rich and deep background analysis. Here is a video of a pastoral presentation of a subset of the facts. Habermas presents the case as videos here and here, in two parts. Here is a video of a debate he had with Antony Flew.]

The list of facts is in some respects fairly obvious.

That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified — as Gamaliel hinted at — was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant.  In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 – 3 right there. Facts 10 – 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 – 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded.

So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism. The old Deist objections (though sometimes renewed today) have deservedly fallen by the wayside. [Also, cf. ten video shorts on popular myths here.]

We may briefly compare:

“Theory”
Match to four major credible facts regarding Jesus of Nazareth & his Passion
Overall score/20
Died by crucifixion
(under Pontius Pilate) at
Jerusalem
c 30 AD
Was buried, tomb was found empty
Appeared to multiple disciples,
many of whom proclaimed
& suffered for their
faith
Appeared to key
objectors who then became church leaders: James & Paul
Bodily Resurrection
5
5
5
5
20
Visions/
hallucinations
5
2
2
1
10
Swoon/recovery
1
3
2
2
8
Wrong tomb
5
1
1
1
8
Stolen body/fraud
5
2
1
1
9
Quran 4:155 -6: “They did not slay him, neither crucified him.” 1 1 1 1 4
 “Jesus never existed” 1 1 1 1 4
 “Christianity as we know it was cooked up by Constantine and  others at Nicea, who censored/ distorted the original record” 1 1 1 1 4
“What we have today is ‘Paulianity,’ not the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples” 2 1 1 2 6
Christianity — including the resurrection —  is a gradually emerging legend based on a real figure
5
1
1
1
8
Complete legend/pagan copycat (Greek, Persian, Egyptian, etc)
1
1
1
1
4

(I have given my scores above, based on reasoning that should be fairly obvious. As an exercise you may want to come up with your own scores on a 5 – 1 scale: 5 = v. good/ 4 = good/ 3 = fair/ 2 = poor/ 1 = v. poor, with explanations. Try out blends of the common skeptical theories to see how they would fare.)

Laying a priori anti-supernaturalism aside as a patent case of worldview level question-begging closed mindedness, the above table shows that there are two serious candidates today, the resurrection as historically understood, or some version of a collective vision/hallucination that led to a sincere (but plainly mistaken) movement.

The latter of course runs into  the problem that such collective visions are not psychologically plausible as the cultural expectations of a resurrection would have been of a general one in the context of the obvious military triumph of Israel. Nor, does it explain the apparently missing body. Moreover, we know separately, that the culturally accepted alternative would have been individual prophetic visions of the exalted that on being shared would comfort the grieving that the departed rested with God. So, an ahead of time individual breakthrough resurrection — even, one that may be accompanied by some straws in the wind of what is to come in fulness at the end — is not part of the mental furniture of expectations in C1 Judaism.  Where, hallucinations and culturally induced visions are going to be rooted in such pre-existing mental “furniture.”

Where, also — tellingly — the women who bought spices and went to the tomb that morning plainly expected to find it occupied by a dead prophet, one unjustly judicially murdered as so many others had been.  (And if you doubt the account that reports how these women became the first to discover the tomb and to see the risen Messiah, consider how dismissive C1 Jews were to the testimony of “hysterical” — that very word in English is rooted in the Greek for womb, hustera (reflecting a very old prejudice . . . ) — women. Such an embarrassing point would only be admitted if the reporter was seeking to tell the full truth as best as he could, regardless of how poorly it would come across to his audience; a C1 audience, not a C21 one.)

The Easter event cuts across all reasonable cultural expectations, and obviously forced a much closer — transforming — look at messianic prophetic passages such as Isa 52 – 53 which plainly led to an aha moment.

Notwithstanding, I can understand how someone can come to a conclusion that the famous carpenter from Nazareth turned itinerant preacher ran into troubles with local and colonial authorities and paid with his life. Then, maybe someone is willing to argue that (despite the problems) some of the followers had visions that convinced them that he was risen from death and against all odds stood in the teeth of concerted powers to the point where at length after a bloody trail of woe, persecution and peaceful martyrdom, the Christian faith prevailed.

But the sort of dismissiveness about the bare historicity of the carpenter from Galilee — itself BTW, a major point of admitting an embarrassing fact that in those days was enough to make many inclined to dismiss — does not come across as reasonably warranted by evidence.

Frankly, it comes across as smacking of ideological desperation to lock out of consideration a major but unwelcome worldview alternative, ethical theism in the Judaeo Christian tradition.

And, in that context, the matter sheds a telling light on the attitudes and agendas that seem to lurk in the background of debates over things like the design inference.

In short, I am appealing for a less polarised, less intransigently hyperskeptical approach to evidence and warrant. And, not just for the design issue. I frankly fear that the locked-in agenda approach is a big part of a march of folly now in progress at all sorts of levels across our civilisation. A civilisation that, to me, seems to be on a collision course with reality — and which is inclined to forget that those who despise the lessons of history bought with blood and tears doom themselves to pay much the same price yet again.

change_challCan we not find a better way? Before it is too late? END

 

Comments
Tangent was your term in comment 71, which was the comment/topic of my response. Not sure what you think I'm dismissing. What is clear, however, is that you have not addressed the substance of the comment. When presented with facts, you deflect and dismiss. When offered a question, you respond with murky philosophy. It makes no difference to me, of course, but these tactics of yours are why creationists lose in court: when really pressed to connect the dots from evidence to conclusions, they are found to have over-reached.LarTanner
October 16, 2015
October
10
Oct
16
16
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
LT, on "tangents" kindly cf the OP. On just what rhetoric of dismissal you have attempted cf the actual thread above. KFkairosfocus
October 15, 2015
October
10
Oct
15
15
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
KF, Even on your tangent, we agree. As your quoted narrative attests, Paul was not convinced by the evidence presented by early Christian Jews; it took a gen-u-ine miracle to change him. Unfortunately, his comrades on the road to Damascus did not seem to share his level of understanding as to what was happening. He was pretty lucky. Had it not been for the supernatural vision that sorted everything out, old Saul might have happily persecuted Christians the rest of his life, such being the "blinding power of the fallacy of the closed, presumptuous, hostile mind-set." Please do understand that I condemn such persecution fully and do not dismiss or minimize it in any way. Back to the matter at hand. Does Saul/Paul's conversion increase the credibility of the story that Jesus was resurrected? No. In fact, Paul's requiring supernatural help indicates that the evidence was never good enough on its own. Does Saul/Paul's conversion increase his own credibility as a source for whether Jesus was actually resurrected? No, not at all. He still was nowhere near the primary events. Does Saul/Paul's conversion make the first Christian Jews more credible as witnesses to an original resurrection miracle? No, it means Paul was more willing to believe their story than he was before. So tell me again: how exactly is anything in the writings of Paul supposed to lead a neutral, reasonable person to Jesus belief? I ask the question rhetorically: you don't need to respond. Perhaps you should consider that when it comes to the Greek Testament and whatever brand of modern Christianity you have adopted, you are selectively hyper-credulous? Please think about it, for your own sake. Maybe it's high time you stopped defending what you believe and started defining what you know. Just a thought, offered with good intention. And now I'll bow out of the conversation, with thanks.LarTanner
October 15, 2015
October
10
Oct
15
15
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
F/N: While the matter is tangential, it is worth noting what Paul had to say about his conversion:
Ac 22:1 “Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you.” 2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language,[a] they became even more quiet. And he said: 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel[b] according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day. 4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women, 5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 “As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand[c] the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. 12 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ 17 “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19 And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you. 20 And when the blood of Stephen your witness was being shed, I myself was standing by and approving and watching over the garments of those who killed him.’ 21 And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”
Where, a few years before this AD 57 incident in the Temple precincts, which led to his four years of imprisonments and trials in Judaea and Rome as well as a shipwreck along the way, in AD 55 -- as already noted but repeatedly ignored -- he warned in the opening texts of 1 Cor:
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach[b] to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
In short, there is such a thing as the blinding power of the fallacy of the closed, presumptuous, hostile mind-set, which too often blinds those who should know better. Even in the face of abundant and adequate evidence. Indeed, that is exactly what has been in striking evidence here at UD in recent weeks, where we have again seen stubborn hostility to the concept that some things have distinct identity and so as a direct corollary the three-fold self-evident first principles of right reason -- LOI, LNC, LEM, instantly obtain. If there is such polarisation and stubbornly unyielding resistance in the face of first principles of reason, we cannot expect a much better performance when other things of a necessarily lower degree of warrant are on the table. We already, at the outset have clinging to patent, incoherent, self-refuting, absurdity. Things can only go downhill from there. That is why we see onwards dismissal of inductive, empirically anchored reasoning in some quarters, and a widespread refusal to heed the Newtonian, vera causa principle that to scientifically explain traces of what we cannot directly inspect, we should be willing to require that adequate cause be shown to cause the like effect. This leads on to evolutionary materialistic scientism, which is self-refuting by first trying to make a philosophical principle that only science can ground knowledge, and second by inadvertently undermining the credibility of mind to reason and know. On the history front, the mentality will not acknowledge even the bare possibility that eyewitnesses could credibly see and experience what goes undreamed of in that already bankrupt philosophy, and so exerts undue selective hyperskepticism in the face of evidence. And so, it is no surprise to see every side track, every rhetorical artifice instead of actually addressing what is on the table from the outset. At this stage, it is not Jesus, Paul, the 500 or the C1 deposit that are on trial, we are. KFkairosfocus
October 14, 2015
October
10
Oct
14
14
2015
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
LT, kindly look again at the above. KFkairosfocus
October 13, 2015
October
10
Oct
13
13
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
KF, no matter how much I agree with you, you don't want to accept it. Again, I have no doubt whatsoever that Paul's teachings about Jesus contain a "core of truth" and a powerful one at that. But does Paul's conversion constitute evidence that Jesus was actually resurrected? Does the ascent of Christianity indicate that the resurrection happened? The answer continues to be no, even for one who (like me) agrees that there was a historical Jesus. Tell me, why do you think Paul failed to be converted until -- as he claims -- he had a personal vision of Jesus telling him he was wrong?LarTanner
October 13, 2015
October
10
Oct
13
13
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
LT, I first needed to point out how the context has changed, decisively. Blood is on the ground, Christian martyrs' blood. Innocent blood crying up from the ground. Understand that. Next, I need to point out to you that you are participating in a side that has already in recent weeks again underscored that it is resistant to and dismissive of the significance of distinct identity and its corollaries, first principles of right reason that are self-evident. Indeed, of self evident truth; including moral ones. That does not bespeak a side that is intellectually and morally responsible. So, I simply note for the onlooker that the C1 report and findings of a generation of scholarship on principles of credibility as already noted, regarding the historicity of Jesus on records, is already summed up. It has very little to do with what your distractive rhetoric suggests by way of trying to discredit Paul reporting c 55 AD on the official summary testimony of the 500 and inviting by implication those who challenged him to simply go check the witnesses; most then being alive. And, I again note, we are talking here of places on a major sea trade route, about 750 miles apart (not the 1500 you tried to suggest by way of insinuating that check them out was infeasible.) As for Paul, he actually is a witness, in two distinct senses. First, he was the former sword of the Sanhedrin, so would have known the counter arguments to the Christians and the evidence used to persuade opponents to dismiss the Christian case. His conversion is thus a highly significant mark of credibility, why it is one of the twelve findings of fact of note. Likewise the spreading of the Church in the teeth of determined objectors and opponents, on a message that is rife with points of embarrassment to its main witnesses, itself bespeaks a telling core of truth and power behind it. Which is yet another of the points of fact. And, the tabulation of historic explanations of the key facts as found credible, speaks for itself. I only note that some version or other of hallucinations is in fact the main suggested objecting alternative, in reasonably serious circles. So, pardon, your dismissive rhetoric and tin-eared tone do not work. G'day KFkairosfocus
October 13, 2015
October
10
Oct
13
13
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
LT, right off you are trying to dilute and oh it's happening to others elsewhere and atheists are unwelcome in political office. Have you no sense of proportion? Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that for many years now, the most persecuted and murdered faith-group has been the Christian one. First under the communists, now the Islamists and secularists. The cultivation of a drumbeat of hostility and climate of growing anti-Christian bigotry, stereotyping and scapegoating in our civilisation, leading up to a case where people, one by one in a classroom were asked to confess their Christian belief then shot through the head, then the back-burnering of this by major media -- the NYT censoring out an inconvenient detail is telling, harking back to the Ukraine in the 1930's -- is a loud warning bell. That pattern drastically changes the context of discussion and the ugly significance of the longstanding agenda to pretend and project that Bible-believing Christians are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Such words and agitprop agendas -- easily visible all over Youtube etc -- have now borne grim fruit, only to be treated as though nothing significant, epochal even, has happened. Not good enough by a long shot. To make the point, take note, I will never greet an expressed concern of the 6 million Jews murdered by Hitler and co, with, oh, others have also been murdered for their faith etc. Yes, I will point out that 5 million others, including 2 million Polish Christians were murdered in the same ambit and 25 million Russians died, but that is only to further say Hitler et al were misanthropes. The refusal to publicly acknowledge and turn from that sort of hate-stirring smear speaks, and it changes the entire context of discussion. This is watershed, and you had better realise it. KFkairosfocus
October 13, 2015
October
10
Oct
13
13
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
KF (59), Of course I am aware of the current context. I know as you do that the Oregon shooter was asking people what religion they were before he shot them. I am also aware, as you are, that atheists are being harassed and gunned down. See Saudi Arabia, for recent example. And atheists are notably unwelcome in American political office. The struggle to live according to one's genuine beliefs and the real, physical dangers of doing so are apparent everywhere. The blood of atheists is as red as that of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. This is precisely why we must talk openly about beliefs, and facts, and evidence, and conclusions. I quote your words:
Paul’s relevance FYI, is that he documents as one of the leadership circles of the movement, the official summary dating to the mid 30’s, indeed IIRC Gerd Ludemann (a noted skeptic) would put it to early 30’s and the obvious provenance is Jerusalem, where the events happened. Paul notes using the sort of terms a Rabbi would, that this is creedal deposit of core testimony.
That's fine. Paul's summary is the "official" (whatever that means) story of the movement. I accept this, as well as the dating, as well as Paul's adoption of rabbinic language. I have not disputed or challenged any of this. Then you say:
In addition, writing to opponents, he invites, come talk to the 500, most of whom are still alive, and who are saying this exact same summary I am giving you. This is record, in a context of other record, 20 years from the event, with the witnesses a simple sail away. Where the other record makes it plain that Paul speaks truthfully.
Again, this is fine. Yes, he tells folks that they can take a "simple" sail back to Jerusalem (you give approx. 750 miles in comment 60; I have about an 800 mile journey as the crow flies; my 1500 miles was a land-only route) and somehow find one of the 500, however many still live after 20 years from the event in question. Skipping a bit, you next say this:
Such a history of such a movement begs for adequate explanation. And on the tabulation in the OP above, there are two reasonably serious explanations: unparalleled and inexplicable hallucinations, or witness of truth. Witness sealed with steadfastness to death in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse.
Really, you think these are the only two serious explanations? A few thumbnail anecdotes: (1) I once attended an Alpha Course with my wife. Alpha Course is a Christian program where they try to bring in people who are not sure of Christianity and get them into the church. This program went on for many weeks, but the big event was an overnight weekend where everyone would get to interact with the "holy spirit." People were genuinely moved and really believed some supernatural force had communed with them. But what actually happened was a choreographed and charged set of discussions, prayers and one-on-one fervency. It was a lot of showmanship and getting folks emotionally worked up. A lot of being very friendly and positive and personal. Some people's lives were changed, but they were changed by other people and by an emotional catharsis. I know you and BA77 like the songs; I thought thy had an interesting eroticism--all this appeal to Jesus to "fill" them! (2) As an undergraduate, I worked for the Consumer Protection Division in Massachusetts. Part of my role was to go after con-men who would prey on people by starting some construction work and then skipping town, or piling on other charges, and so on. I found that con-artists get aggressive when challenged. "If you don't believe me," they would say, "go talk to so-and-so." Or they would try other tactics--anything to deflect your scrutiny then an there in the moment. They sure sounded convincing; most people who challenge a con-artist won't actually bother to go as so-and-so. (3) When I was a graduate student studying Anglo-Saxon England, I enjoyed learning about oral cultures and how oral transmission worked. What was interesting, though not really surprising, was they way the oral tellers would work within the constraints of a narrative, yet find ways to alter and invent: they introduced elements or shaded others just enough to fit rhetorically and to put a personal stamp on a received narrative. Back to your post (59).The main question to ask right now is whether Paul is a credible source for the Jesus story. I have already said I accept the historicity of some real "Jesus," so you need not worry about that. The question is Paul's credibility as it relates specifically to the Jesus story, especially the resurrection. Clearly, Paul's statement goes only as far as the very earliest Christian believers. Paul can be credible as to what the first Christians believed and taught; he cannot be a source as to what Jesus actually did, said, or taught. Paul did not know Jesus and did not see what happened or didn't happen to him. Paul's devotion to Jesus came from other people, which is certainly no slight against Paul. So, we can both now agree that whatever the facts are about the historical Jesus(es), Paul is not actually a source for them. At best, Paul is a source for the earliest Christian believers and the teachings they gave and received. There is a barrier between Jesus and Paul that is impassable. Do you have anything else? Besides, I mean the "power of the church," histrionics on "bloodguilt," and fourth-rate apologists?LarTanner
October 11, 2015
October
10
Oct
11
11
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
F/N2: But isn't a handed down record or oral tradition mere hearsay that can be dismissed without further consideration? Not when the source in question is a matter of credible source that is recorded in reasonable eyewitness time on a matter that was open to eyewitness correction. More broadly, history can be passed down in communities and/or families with good fidelity for generations, as can be seen from the passing down of key stories. In the context of oral tradition cultures sacred tradition in astonishing amounts is passed down routinely, e.g. the griot of W Africa, and more directly the oral teachings of Rabbis. In the case of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, we have sacred tradition summarising the core witness, naming or identifying about 20 key witnesses among a circle of 500, and within 25 or so years of the event while most of the witnesses were still alive. That the objections above were reduced to suggesting that Corinth and Jerusalem were an exaggerated distance apart [~ 750 mi not 1500] and ignoring the implications of the Imperial wheat trade route up the Levant past Anatolia and near to Corinth, speaks volumes. As, does the point that Paul was in fact summarising a point of consensus to reply to a controversy that appealed to typical Greek thought (denial of resurrection of the dead), and did so by saying in effect go to the originals. Where also we have further early record c 50 - 65 AD on the actual teachings of the early church, backed up by the clear fact that it grew and spread from Jerusalem, by 64 AD being in Rome in sufficient force for Nero to pounce on Christians to divert suspicion on the reason for the fire in Rome of 64 AD. Bring on board the degree to which the report we have is utterly embarrassing to Christians and the principals, setting up the sorts of barriers to acceptance in that time that made arguing the case obviously uphill. KFkairosfocus
October 9, 2015
October
10
Oct
9
09
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
F/N: Minimal Facts Summary 2-pp infographic: http://livebooklet.com/userFiles/a/5/2/7/9/0/9z3AVlsMBqUU3o41hJmnw0/X1GzaZoA.pdf . . . note, the issue is that the findings of fact in question meet criteria as already shown such that it leads the spectrum of scholarship on the whole to accept the facts. I put this up as it helps focus the approach and it helps us recognise that after several days there has been very little engagement of what is actually on the table by objectors. KFkairosfocus
October 9, 2015
October
10
Oct
9
09
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
NB: Some cleanups, highlighting and a note or two in the OP.kairosfocus
October 9, 2015
October
10
Oct
9
09
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
D, glad to point out that article, real food for thought. KFkairosfocus
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
KF Thank you for the Peggy Noonan's article.Dionisio
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
PPS: Your refusal to acknowledge that Corinth and Judaea were along a frequently travelled sea route from Egypt to Italy [there was an entire Department seeing to the wheat for the Bread part of bread and circuses], posting an out of context distance measure, despite correction, speaks volumes. Ships on that route routinely carried up to hundreds of passengers. PPPS: BTW, you have likely confused km and miles, rounding up. As the bombing missions of WW2 across the Mediterranean will support, Tel Aviv to Athens is about 750 miles. That's about the distance from Jamaica to Antigua, or the length of Cuba, comparable to from London to the North of Scotland. Of course the sea route up the Levant then across would be longer, maybe 3 + 4:5 in ratio or thereabouts.kairosfocus
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
LT, Before anything else, I think I need to say a few words: you are still missing a very important current context to the point that tin ear comes to mind. I suggest to you that you do some rethinking in light of the impact of what has happened in Umpqua and the media backburner game given the climate of hostility that has been cultivated and enabled for years. Ponder what would by contrast be happening were it to have been a mass killing of, say, Muslims. There are times when there are serious warning signs. And this is one of those. The time for snide skeptical rhetorical games as usual and for belittling, denigrating, demonising, stereotyping and scapegoating Christians as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked is over, LT. Innocent blood, wickedly shed, cries up from the ground against a civilisation hell-bent on a march of folly. And the innocent blood of Umpqua brings to mind the blood of 58 million and counting unborn, with targetting of those who dare object. Not to mention the many hundreds of millions globally. Bloodguilt and enabling of bloodguilt are heart hardening and mind/conscience benumbing. KF PS: On minimal facts, you are still going off on tangents to set up and knock over strawmen. Paul's relevance FYI, is that he documents as one of the leadership circles of the movement, the official summary dating to the mid 30's, indeed IIRC Gerd Ludemann (a noted skeptic) would put it to early 30's and the obvious provenance is Jerusalem, where the events happened. Paul notes using the sort of terms a Rabbi would, that this is creedal deposit of core testimony. In addition, writing to opponents, he invites, come talk to the 500, most of whom are still alive, and who are saying this exact same summary I am giving you. This is record, in a context of other record, 20 years from the event, with the witnesses a simple sail away. Where the other record makes it plain that Paul speaks truthfully. Your second it's bush telegraph hear-so fails. Fails in a way that is revelatory on the deep-rooted hostility to something that is simple. Such a history of such a movement begs for adequate explanation. And on the tabulation in the OP above, there are two reasonably serious explanations: unparalleled and inexplicable hallucinations, or witness of truth. Witness sealed with steadfastness to death in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. Further to this, here, from the OP, are the actual consensus findings of facts on criteria as outlined, as listed from the survey of 3,000 across the spectrum of scholarship:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion [–> which implies his historicity!]. 2. He was buried. 3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. 4. The tomb was empty (the most contested). 5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof). 6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers. 7. The resurrection was the central message. 8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem. 9. The Church was born and grew. 10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship. 11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic). 12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).
I think you will readily see why I noted on these:
The list of facts is in some respects fairly obvious. That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified — as Gamaliel hinted at — was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant. In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 – 3 right there. Facts 10 – 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 – 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded. So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism. The old Deist objections (though sometimes renewed today) have deservedly fallen by the wayside.
That these are consensus facts as found credible by scholarship is utterly unsurprising. The big challenge is to make sense of them, especially when we know that a message pivoting on such was so utterly rhetorically unappealing, indeed liable only to excite dismissal. There is a missing factor X here to account for the unstoppable power of the church and the conversion of a chief opponent, that needs to be put forth. Nor, can this be left on the back burner, not with innocent blood again crying up from the ground and being brushed aside.kairosfocus
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
KF (57), First let's get explicit agreement on the facts, then we can build the analysis to whatever weight you like. You kinda sorta seem to assent to the facts, but also want to add in caveats and nuances. I ask that we hold the caveats and nuances to the end, but please know that I take them as seriously as you. Let's walk through the facts again. If any of these are incorrect, please say so.
True or false - Paul personally witnessed the death of Jesus? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the burial of Jesus? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed that Jesus was raised on the third day? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus to Cephas? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus to the twelve? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus to more than five hundred brothers at one time? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus to James? False. True or false - Paul personally witnessed the appearance of the risen Jesus to all the apostles? False. True or false (I use a 30 CE date for the death of Jesus) - the events itemized above all occur roughly 15-20+ years before the moment when Paul is writing? True. True or false - Corinth and Jerusalem are roughly 1500+ miles apart, about the distance from Boston to Dallas in the U.S.? True.
Your points on the names/language and oral transmission are important, and we can only fully appreciate them in context of the facts. But you and I are really discussing whether we have good reason to believe -- through Paul -- that Jesus was resurrected to life after having been dead-dead for at least 25 hours. Surely, such a resurrection is more fantastical than fire spewing from the eyes of someone named "Josh." Joshua, as you know, is the Anglicized form of the Hebrew name that relatives and friends might have used for your Jesus. Yet the point is not mockery or hostility but rather honest examination of whether we can or cannot reasonably believe the substance of a story. Now, let's parse out this bit:
We have an oral tradition culture in which the passage of core teachings from master to apprentice is pivotal, and this is precisely that. A structured, formal summary of the facts underwritten by the 500, with about 20 being directly or implicitly identified. And, in a controversial context, Paul’s appeal is, if you doubt me check them out as most are still alive. Itself a further clue on dating, as the next decade would see the Jewish war and the Roman false accusation of treasonous arson against the state and would sweep many off the table. By two generations on, it would be an assumption that obstinate Christians deserved torture and death, as we saw with Bythinia.
(1) "We have an oral tradition culture in which the passage of core teachings from master to apprentice is pivotal, and this is precisely that." I agree. It's also why it's so pivotal that Paul puts himself last in the chain of personal appearances. Do you agree that the appearance of Jesus to Paul gives authority to Paul's ministry? (2) "A structured, formal summary of the facts underwritten by the 500, with about 20 being directly or implicitly identified. And, in a controversial context, Paul’s appeal is, if you doubt me check them out as most are still alive." Again, I agree. This is a strong rhetorical tactic. I have always wondered whether any of the doubters made the trip over to Jerusalem, found the address of one of the 500, knocked on the door, and verified the events of ca. 30 CE. (3) "Itself a further clue on dating, as the next decade would see the Jewish war and the Roman false accusation of treasonous arson against the state and would sweep many off the table. By two generations on, it would be an assumption that obstinate Christians deserved torture and death, as we saw with Bythinia." Again, we are comrades together in despising the use of state power to marginalize and kill minority religions and groups. You and I both know the pattern has been repeated far too often in the centuries before and after Paul. The martyrs are everywhere. But let me close by suggesting we get back to the point, which concerns how much we get to believe an otherwise impossible story, especially when that story comes to us second-hand. So, to me Paul doesn't present a good enough reason to believe seriously that dead Jesus became living Jesus again. We're talking a limited case, however, and now is the time to try and fortify the case around Paul or else to move to a different source and suggest that this one offers a more direct and solid set of reasons to accept that the resurrection indeed happened.LarTanner
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
LT, First, you resort to projecting to me what I summarise. The timeline on the creedal testimony with "Kepha" as first official witness is widely understood to be of the epoch 35 - 38 AD on the NT timeline, for good cause. The reference to Peter in Aramaic (the original language of the nickname of Simon bar Jonah) should give a clue as by the 40's - 50's, Greek-language Jews and gentiles began to shift the language balance. Paul, secondly is not merely relying on a relayed story, with hints of "bush telegraph" games lurking. We have an oral tradition culture in which the passage of core teachings from master to apprentice is pivotal, and this is precisely that. A structured, formal summary of the facts underwritten by the 500, with about 20 being directly or implicitly identified. And, in a controversial context, Paul's appeal is, if you doubt me check them out as most are still alive. Itself a further clue on dating, as the next decade would see the Jewish war and the Roman false accusation of treasonous arson against the state and would sweep many off the table. By two generations on, it would be an assumption that obstinate Christians deserved torture and death, as we saw with Bythinia. Your oh, it's 1500 miles away ignores a pivotal cluster of facts. Paul writes to Corinth on the Isthmus where ships were routinely dragged to cut journeys short from Egypt and the Levant, to Italy and Rome. And in any case a switch of ship would be convenient. With of course the road network built for the Legions also. In short, given the wheat trade from Egypt and the general commerce, Corinth was close to Alexandria and the Levant in sailing time. With a LOT of routine traffic back and forth. Indeed, Ac 27 gives us a very important case in point on that trade and its challenges with winds and seasons. So, you have caricatured the facts to your hoped for rhetorical advantage, refusing to face the weight of analysis that lies behind it. Next, you put up a strawman tactic tale that twists the entire category of the report. A far better comparison is that starting July 18, 1995 (yes, fire of Rome anniversary) the people of Montserrat began to hear strange jet plane noises, and that evening we heard of eruptions of the mountain. The next two years totally disrupted our history, and many of us have extremely vivid memories of a nightmarish period in our history. Some few of us have written, often in passionate concern for our native or adoptive homeland. In this context many people, often of little formal education, have their stories to tell. But in the midst of all this, where we have radio programs where an older generation recounts life in a buried town, talking of homes, shops, schools, offices etc that are now vanished under ash and lahars, a new generation is growing up that can only access those vanished days orally, with some writings by obviously biased people. But, you say, that's not supernatural. Precisely, your fictional Josh has fire spewing from his eyes. The apostles, women of the company and others of the 500 talk to us about ritual suppers, betrayals, judicial murder through dirty politics and rent a crowd. They tell of Kepha trying the Judas Maccabeus game, ineptly -- he tried to strike off a head, but the man ducked so only an ear came off, only to be rebuked. Screwed up courage vanishes and men flee. The young man whose house hosted the ritual supper ran naked into the night after the arresting party tried to grab him. Judicial torture and murder follow, and a few take the courage to honour yet another murdered prophet. The following Sunday morning, the women who had stood by the stauros, made a journey to try to complete the burial, only to find an empty tomb. They assume the officials took the body and pathetically try to get it back. Across that day, various acquaintances meet with, eat with, converse with a dearly loved friend and brother or son. This continues for weeks. The difference is, this is the man who had been crucified. He instructs them to carry his teachings to the world. Which for the next thirty years, they do. Transforming the world. 2,000 years later, with the movement they founded a dominant influence on history, with records in excess of anything else from antiquity, with a large and growing body of findings, and more, scholarship across the spectrum has converged on a dozen or so findings of fact that pass the criteria for high credibility. The issue is, what reasonably explains such, why. And it is highly revealing that, rather than face that, every attempt is made to dismiss the summary of what, 3,000 works across the spectrum. Starting with the sort of breezy dismissal of the historicity of the world's most famous carpenter that I headlined in the OP. In that context your personality-laced insinuations about "screeds" etc only further tell me that you are desperate for the minimal facts of the scholarship over the past 40 years to be swept off the table, unexamined but dismissed as if they were a mere internet rant. That sort of rhetorical tactic speaks volumes. Here is my answer: your Josh story -- itself in context a mocking caricature of the Greek form, Jesus -- is a strawman caricature that simply does not address sober criteria of evidence, testimony, report and faithfully transmitted record bought with blood and tears. It bespeaks an underlying hostile mindset that is ill-becoming less than a week after Christians, one by one, were shot on confession in an English class from hell in Umpqua, Oregon. I think you need to rethink approach and attitude in light of what the madmen are distilling out of the atmosphere that is being cultivated. KFkairosfocus
October 8, 2015
October
10
Oct
8
08
2015
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
KF (44), I was inadvertently delayed in my ability to respond. Important matters of state, you know. I did not intend to go off on a tangent; rather, I thought to be building on the point you had made earlier. But let's go back to 1 Cor 15:1-ff. You view these verses as "the summary traceable to c 35 – 38 AD, of the testimony of the chief witnesses, this being recorded to a partly hostile audience with invite to check it out on grounds that the majority of the witnesses were alive at the time." I mainly agree. The verses do summarize "the gospel I preached to you, which you received." That is, they summarize the story Paul told his audience before. Where did Paul get the story? He says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received." So, it seems, Paul himself was not a direct participant in the story (excepting, of course, his report of having himself been visited by an appearance of Jesus). So, Paul relays a mostly previously relayed story. We can agree on this, right? We can also agree that the main events of the story happened 20-plus years before in a place over 1,500 miles away. Yes? These are basic, unvarnished facts. We both know there are additional facts and additional considerations and nuances. We can talk about these additional facts straightaway, but let's put those aside for a moment and please agree that Paul did not himself see but was taught "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time." If you can, now please do me the courtesy of answering this straightforward question. If an elderly person comes and tells you the story of Josh, who 20 years ago was witnessed to have shot fire directly out of his eyes, what is your default level of credulity? The person did not witness the strange event himself, but it was done in front of a crowd, many of whom are still alive, though they all live far away. Again, what is the proper level of default credulity for this story? Now, I'd like to think the best of you, that you'll give me a genuine and direct answer and not launch into a screed about Paul's history prior to 1 Cor 15, the blood of the martyrs, and all the eyewitnesses that Paul knew. I understand all that and I am OK hearing you out on it, but I think the first, important thing is to gain our agreement on something. On anything. It's not a game or trick. If you don't want to humor me, that's fine and I understand. I have better things to do, too. But I will make the effort to help you experience the way I read and hear some of the same facts as you, yet arrive at different conclusions. Perhaps I am hyperskeptical, and selectively so. But the way to find and and to correct for it is to work incrementally, separating out facts on the ground from the interpretations we give those facts.LarTanner
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
F/N 2: A linked objection is in effect how dare you set aside our objection that since these biased Christians talk about miracles we can sweep away their whole tale as fairy tales. This one fails to reckon with the circumstance that descriptions of claimed supernatural events are common in ancient texts, so if consistently applied, poof to ancient history. More to the point, we can generally check that a source is a reasonable report that needs not be even near perfect to be useful. In that context, the sort of criteria laid out multiplied by the emergence of a consensus on findings of fact as seen, will give us a good bare bones picture. Where of course any reasonably informed reading of the NT in the context of the success of the church with an almost spectacularly embarrassing message, and the astonishingly patent sincerity of the early witnesses, further multiplied by archaeological cross checks etc will see that we have a reasonable base of record in hand. The minimal facts then practically fall out. Carpenter from ultimate obscurity, check. Got into trouble with local and colonial authorities leading to execution to nip potential or actual rebellion in the bud, check. Hanged on a tree, accursed, check. Crucified nobody from nowhere, without any real participation in the philosophical trends, you little spermologos, check. Followers run for their lives, leaving women to support burial duties and complete them, check. Women, your first witnesses -- as in, old wives hysterical tales, check. With the exception of a turncoat, nobodies with no chits from the right schools and masters, check. Cutting across general religious expectations by the experts, check. Scum of the earth from backwaters, check. And so forth, check. The only basis for success is, they were utterly convinced and inspired to rise far above themselves, rooted in an utterly unyielding conviction that they had met, talked with, ate with, had breakfast cooked by their Lord, AFTER his death by crucifixion. There are two serious alternatives: unparalleled, inexplicable hallucination, or they really were witnesses of truth able to demonstrate that truth with power. And that becomes so challenging that at almost any price, it must be locked out. Which readily explains what we see above. KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
F/N: An example of bias and question-begging in objecting to the minimal facts approach, is this:
Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic Posted on June 29, 2013 by adversusapologetica When investigating virtually every other past event outside of the origins of Christianity, professional historians recognize that ancient texts — both Pagan and Christian — are incapable of proving paranormal claims about the past. This is due to no special bias against the supernatural, as I explain in my article “History and the Paranormal,” but would apply equally to natural paranormal claims, such alien abductions, sasquatch sightings, and so on . . .
Sounds oh, so reasonable. Until you first realise that the method as applied to the historicity of Jesus and of his passion linked to the birth of the church STRICTLY DOES NOT ADDRESS ANY "PARANORMAL" PHENOMENA . . . which is in reality a euphemism for what is really at work, antisupernaturalist prejudice imposed. Let us start with a possible apelike creature in North America or elsewhere. Patently, eyewitnesses of reasonable credibility in multiple documents who are truthful even when embarrassed etc, and are supported by their enemies would be entirely reasonable as testifying to having seen an apelike creature. And that such a creature may not be photographed or in captivity or shot and stuffed to put up in a museum does not suffice to dismiss the veracity of such record or to lock it out of the history books on an arbitrary rule. It is possible in the abstract that some unknown mass hallucination has acted, maybe even a holographic projection by aliens. But on the principle of reasonable explanation, there is no requirement that records of such an ape be excluded from history as "paranormal." Now compare the case in view in the OP. The existence of a carpenter-itinerant preacher getting into trouble and being executed on political convenience is very plausible. Likewise, that acquaintances can be involved with the miscarriage of justice in various embarrassing ways, after a common supper. And, that they would then witness death and burial is not a problem. The real problem is that over the next six weeks, the same circle encountered an empty tomb, which they thought meant the authorities would not allow the dignity of decent burial. They then find under various circumstances that the same authorities are blaming them for grave robbing. But also to their amazement the same well known individual meets with them. Ability of dozens of people to see and recognise someone they know at supper, breakfast etc is not in general doubt. Nor is it in doubt that one can tell a time sequence. Those are the facts being reported. The miracles issue lieth not in the twelve facts but their import in light of timeline. Which then leads to the second tier issue of how does such come to be, thus the tabulation above. But there is no justification in this for the now expected lockout dismissal game. KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
F/N2: Aaron Blake on the minimal facts approach:
. . . it is important to identify a set of objective criteria by which the validity of historical events may be judged. In other words, what criteria may be used to establish the occurrence of an event with reasonable historical certainty? New Testament scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona list the following five criteria noting that “a historian who is able to apply one or more of the following principles to a text can conclude with much greater confidence whether a certain event occurred.”[10]
1] Historical claims are strong when supported by multiple, independent sources. 2] Historical claims which are also attested to by enemies are more likely to be authentic since enemies are unsympathetic, and often hostile, witnesses. 3] Historical claims which include embarrassing admissions reflect honest reporting rather than creative storytelling. 4] Historical claims are strong when supported by eyewitness testimony. 5] Historical claims which are supported by early testimony are more reliable and less likely to be the result of legendary development.[11]
Therefore, when inquiring into a historical event “the historian combs through the data, considers all the possibilities, and seeks to determine which scenario best explains the data.”[12] Some skeptics argue that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be investigated historically. But this is mistaken. The facts surrounding the resurrection are of a historical nature and available for anyone to examine. Consequently, “the meaning of the resurrection is a theological matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter.”[13] Thus either the bodily resurrection of Jesus actually occurred in history or it did not. Either the resurrection is the best explanation for the known historical data or it is not. Regardless, what we cannot do is simply dismiss it as “supernatural” or “miraculous” in an attempt to remove it from the pool of live options a priori. Moreover, we need to be careful not to confuse “the evidence for the resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence. The resurrection of Jesus is a miraculous explanation of the evidence. But the evidence itself is not miraculous. None of these four facts is any way supernatural or inaccessible to the historian.”[14] So although the resurrection may be classified as a “miraculous event,” it is a historical event nonetheless and should be investigated as such. John Warwick Montgomery provides helpful insight:
The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of “miracles,” then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation. And note that a historian, in facing an alleged “miracle,” is really facing nothing new. All historical events are unique, and the test of their factual character can be only the accepted documentary approach that we have followed here. No historian has the right to a closed system of natural causation….”[15]
Therefore, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead is really quite straightforward: “If Jesus was dead at point A, and alive again at point B, then resurrection has occurred: res ipsa loquitur.”[16]
The point is, we are not dealing with a simplistic polling of opinions, but with evaluation of sources, claims and contexts which render particular claims credible. In that context the weight of informed opinion across the past generation across the spectrum, on 3,000 works in the literature, is significant. Where, as highlighted the claims in fact are not hard to justify. Nor does any one of the claims actually entail the occurrence of the miraculous. The closest is the report that the early Christians believed they had encounters (of various kinds) with the risen Jesus. I doubt that in this day any serious and reasonable person would argue deliberate fraud by the disciples. From these, the tabulation in the OP is on the table as of right not grudging sufferance. KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
F/N: Links Historicity of Jesus: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/EvidenceBook/GaryHabermas_Evidence-for-the-historical-Jesus-Release_1point1.pdf Habermas Dissertation: http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/dissertation/habermas_dissertation_1976.pdf KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Dionisio, Noonan, ten years ago: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122479408458463941 KFkairosfocus
October 7, 2015
October
10
Oct
7
07
2015
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
KF @ 47 Yes. Thank you.Dionisio
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT
KF @45 Well stated. Thank you. It's past 6am here. Autumn season. Yesterday 14C through the day. Temps drop at night. As you have mentioned in your comments, this area of the world witnessed historical events in the first half of the 20th century, that speak volumes on the destructive capacity of humans that follow their own sinful hearts, regardless of their alleged 'civilization' / education level. But we humans don't learn from history lessons, hence we naturally tend to forget and repeat mistakes. There's only one source of true wisdom. Everything else is fake. But we humans naturally look for 'wisdom' in the wrong places. Remain in the Word. Rev. 22:21Dionisio
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
F/N: To get study resources on passage search at Bible Gateway, click the blue "Study This" button; which will bring up a library of resources including the Reformation Study Bible favoured by Dionisio. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Dionisio, Here is Jn 3:
Jn 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
. . . and Eph 4:
Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.
That is the Spirit and Voice we respond to. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
#43 addendum
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1 Corinthians 1:18 (ESV)]
perishing . . . being saved. According to the Bible there will be two types of response to the gospel arising from God’s elective purpose (Is. 6:9, 10; Luke 2:34; Rom. 9:10–12; 2 Cor. 2:15, 16). This truth does not make God responsible for the perishing of unbelievers; they perish because of their own sin and stubborn impenitence. Those who believe and are saved, on the other hand, are “those who are called” (v. 24; Rom. 9:16). [Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]
Dionisio
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Dionisio, named after him who took up the torch of the gospel in Athens, yes and yes again. And most telling, most shamefully revealing, is the insistence on pushing the martyrdom of C21 to the back-burner in a context where the very same media and spokesmen would have been so vocal had the course of events fit their favoured narratives and agendas. This is yet another warning-sign of our times. Let it be said, clear and loud: I am a Christian. KFkairosfocus
October 6, 2015
October
10
Oct
6
06
2015
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply