Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Tim O'Neill is an atheist, an occasional member of this forum, and a knowledgeable historian. He addresses the Jesus Myth here:

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-1-of-2/
http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist...rt-2-of-2/

Up-front warning: long post coming, gonna be all pink 'cause fuck it.


Ok, I've checked those links out, and while he does have a strong grasp of the mainstream opinion of the Christ Myth theory, he's not necessarily right about all of what he's saying. For one thing, he mentions the town of Nazareth, but here's another fun fact for you: the town of Nazareth also has little to no established historicity. The place Jesus is supposed to have grown up might not have existed either. There's a site out in that desert somewhere that people are claiming was Nazareth, but no archaeological evidence to this effect has actually been confirmed; wild claims have been made, of course, but all evidence has failed once examined by unbiased scholars. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of a town named Nazareth during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there.

Let's agree for the sake of argument that the town/village of Nazareth has not yet been discovered by archaeologists?

Is that sufficient reason to discount the rest of the New Testament and the extra-biblical data concerning Jesus?

It's certainly true that most mainstream historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed in one form or another (even though he has virtually no historicity and neither does his home-town). It's also true that in many cases, the consensus of experts is an excellent indicator of objective reality. The tricky thing about consensus, though, is that it's not a universal indicator of truth, no matter how widespread a particular consensus may be. History is rife with examples of times when pretty much everyone turned out to be wrong except for, like, one guy. If something is true, it's true even if only one person thinks it, or if no one thinks it. Many experts are good at pointing out problems with arguments for the Christ Myth theory, but the arguments for historicity are equally terrible, if not worse, because they are based on little to no evidence outside of christian scripture and sub-scripture itself.

Fair enough. I agree with many of the points in this paragraph.

However, Jesus was a peasant carpenter from an obscure village in a remote corner of the Roman Empire under occupation. How much information about him should we reasonably expect from contemporaneous sources? And yet, we have some, don't we?

Many branches of the Christ Myth theory forward dubious historical claims and conspiracy-theory gymnastics, and O'Neil does a decent job dismissing those. There are some issues with a few of his arguments, though. For one thing, whether he likes it or not, only 7 of the Epistles are 100% legit, and those Epistles really don't have definite references to an earthly Jesus. The term "born of a woman" really translates more accurately as "made of a woman"; likewise, the same word is used in the passage, "made of the sperm of David." The word most commonly used for "born" was something else entirely. There is mention of "brothers of the Lord," but even in modern times this is used as a way to describe christians and it has been since the early church. Even the human version of Jesus described his followers as his brothers.

Aramaic has no word for "cousin". Mary remained ever-virgin; consequently, Jesus' "brothers" were actually kinsmen - not uterine siblings.

Furthermore, if you look at First Corinthians, you get a passage that supports the "celestial Jesus slain by sky demons" story. Paul at one point writes that those who seized Jesus wouldn't have slain him if they knew it would provide salvation for the human world. Now...the Romans and the Jews were both tribes of humans. If they had known for certain that killing Jesus would save all humans from hell, they absolutely still would have killed him, and happily. Any group of humans would. Especially if he were willing. A bunch of demons who were enemies of man, on the other hand, wouldn't necessarily be as motivated, hence the version of the story where he disguises himself as a demon so they will attack and slay him, essentially tricking them into carrying out his father's plan. Based on the biblical text itself, this narrative actually makes more cohesive sense.

Which verse in Corinthians are you thinking of here?

Now, lots of people will point out that there are other historical figures that we have no problem believing existed who have as little or worse verifiable historicity. The problem is that Jesus is not a typical historical figure; the claims about him are completely wild and extraordinary in the context of both science and history, and he went on to be worshipped as the human embodiment of the creator god. He is by nature an extraordinary figure, and so even the question of his earthly existence should be the subject of very high standards of scrutiny and evidence.

Rightfully so. Evidentialist apologists believe that sufficient evidence exists.

I could probably go on a lot longer, but if you want some more detail and depth on some of the arguments I'm offering, check out a video called "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains The Evidence That Changed His Mind." I'm new, so I won't link directly to it, but if you search for that title on Youtube it should pop right up. The video is a lecture by Dr. Richard Carrier, and he's done extensive work and research into this exact thing to strip away the dubious claims and conspiracy theory bullshit from the Christ Myth theory. Aside from backing up what he says with scripture, he also fits it into the historical context of the Hellenistic Mystery Cults that were developing around the time the Jesus story showed up.

Are you a mythicist like Carrier?

Even if you don't want to get into the issue of whether he existed, your'e still basically fucked in terms of evidence as far as the crucifixion goes. In the context of science, it is extraordinary to claim that a human being rose from the grave after 3 days of being biologically dead. This is not an ordinary claim about history, so you can't justify it with ordinary historical evidence. The problem with christian thinking is that you've been conditioned to believe that the claims forwarded by your bible are as normal, reasonable, and valid as any basic historical or scientific claim, but in truth the claims of the bible are wild and fantastical to others just as the claims of other religions are probably wild and fantastical to you, and as such they should require the highest level of evidence; instead people believe that shit on "faith."

Sure. In terms of science. God created all that science studies, but He Himself is not bound by that. Magic, dude. God has BIG magic.

So, no...the resurrection of Jesus and His other miracles are not "normal"...but they are "reasonable" given who Jesus is.