Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Redbeard The Pink]

Well, I should probably be intimidated when dialoguing with someone who is so much smarter than I am, but I do it so frequently that I've grown accustomed to it.  

Given your intellect, I would recommend reading William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith if you have not already done so. He gets a bad rap from folks in this forum, but I don't really think the negativity is deserved. The man is well-educated, highly intelligent and articulate. Even if you don't agree with him, you will undoubtedly enjoy being challenged by him.

I'd like to apologize for taking so long to get back to this. My wife and I are moving, and I haven't had much time online. I'll try to go back and read the stuff between my last post and this one, but I'm responding to someone directly here, so I'm just gonna throw this up here and read the rest of it later. Sorry if I'm repeating anything anyone else has said.

I am passingly familiar with William Lane Craig and his apologetics, and I have watched him debate various scientific minds. He has neither more evidence nor more reasonable arguments than any of the other theistic apologists I've heard.

I disagree. Witnesses disagree with one another all the time on various details of a crime or accident that they have witnessed, but they agree on the main points. Whether Nazareth existed or not is not a main point, is it? Certainly it is no where near as significant as whether or not God exists. And on that point, all of the gospel writers agree.

You're welcome to disagree...you're just wrong is all. For one thing, practically none of the bible books were actually penned by the people who witnessed the events they described; those events were mostly recorded (read: invented) many years after they were supposed to have taken place (the gospel stories especially).


This means that not only are they not eye witness accounts, they're not even written from eye witness accounts. That makes them worse evidence than eye witness testimony, which is already one of the lowest forms of evidence in existence. What's worse, many of those books were written under pseudonyms so they would seem like they were written by characters in the story. What's even worse, several of those books were entirely or partially forged to put words into an author's mouth and convey beliefs he didn't have (read: Paul). If god's word is so perfect, why would they have to do all that to make it agree with itself?


Besides, whether Nazareth existed is kind of a main point when the guy from your "historical" events is supposed to have grown up there. The gospels all agree that Jesus was raised in Nazareth, and they all agree that god exists. Unfortunately for you, the gospel does not count as evidence of those claims because they are source of those claims, and there is also no other evidence to support either of those claims.

Why? If I read in a book about the Civil War that a Union soldier recorded in his diary that his men had taken up a position near a farm house AND THAT FARM HOUSE HAS VANISHED AND BEEN PAVED OVER BY A WALMART PARKING LOT, is it unreasonable for me to accept the existence of the farmhouse using the diary as evidence for its existence 150 years earlier?

Unlike many of the apologists I've tangled with, I don't like getting bogged down in extraneous debating. For the sake of shortening the number of points I'm destroying, I'm going to assume you read this information in a history book. While it's reasonable to assume that a history book might contain accurate information, if I weren't sure of its accuracy, there are a number of things I could do. For instance, if the book contains photo evidence of the journal it describes (so we can reasonably believe it exists), and that journal was indeed written by a civil war soldier, then that journal is what historians would call an "original manuscript of a first-hand account." As far as historical evidence goes, that's pretty solid.


If the journal still survives, we could corroborate its existence if we didn't believe the history book, and we could run further tests on it to verify that it was likely written during the civil war in the field by a soldier. We could also compare it to other accounts of events from the time to see if we can add to its veracity. There may also be records of the soldier's service if we know who he was, we might be able to figure out where he lived and who his family was to tie him to other figures of history, there could even be photographs of him...you get the idea. As for the farm, we might be able to trace the history of the plot Wal-Mart is on using similar means. The American Civil War happened after documented science had already gotten kind of popular with some people, so records of that time are significantly better than the time period you're wanting to describe.


The problem with the bible is that there are no such original manuscripts still in tact, and the bible is also a book of myth, not history. The nearest copy we have of a New Testament text, as far as I know, shows up around 100 years after the story was originally supposed to have been written. That may be better than the circumstances for some ancient texts, but it's still piss poor compared to an original copy of a Civil War soldier's journal in terms of reliable evidence.

I agree that the positive claim has the burden of proof.

Ok, so now that we're clear on that...some proof, please? Any? Nothing you've presented counts as evidence of your actual claim. It's either another unsupported claim, or a misrepresentation of the evidence itself.

Wrong on both counts. First, scholars do have a pretty good idea of what they can safely remove from the Testimonium Flavianum and second, there is no dispute over the second passage from Josephus which mentions James, the brother of Jesus. Finally, you might want to check your dates for Tacitus. Tacitus was a contemporary of Josephus.

Man, for a second there I was excited because I was like "Oh man, did an apologist just nail one of my points? Oh shit! Wasn't expecting that!"

So then I double checked my research. And lol'd.

Now, I'll give you one thing: Tacitus and Josephus were absolutely contemporaries. I checked the dates, and presuming Wikipedia is right on this one (I, for one, love me some Wiki), those two men were alive at pretty much exactly the same time. That much I concede.


See what I did there? You showed me some evidence, and I changed my mind. What a concept.


Unfortunately for you, it doesn't do as much for you as you'd like, which brings us to the funny part. I did a little more research on both Tacitus and Josephus. First of all, Josephus is even worse than I thought. I was under the impression that the writings of Josephus had been "tampered with," and the debate was over which parts were forgeries and which parts weren't. As it turns out, the writings of Josephus have been thoroughly debunked as an apologetics tool since...get this mother fucker...THE 1800S!!! That's right, Tex, you just fired a piece of dead apologetics that's been a dud for over a hundred years. Wear your shame!


As for Tacitus, he lived from 56 C.E. (well after human Jesus would have lived, died, and floated back up to heeeven) to 117 C.E. and wrote his annals during the later part ofhis life (he died before completing it), putting most if not all of those writings a good 100 years after Jesus would have lived. In an era without modern documentation or science where life spans were averaging 50 years, it is remarkably easy to pass off a fictional character as a historical one to such an extent that Tacitus would have had no reason to disbelieve the story. Also, as I stated before and regardless of what apologists want to argue, he could have easily been writing about the beliefs of the christians regardless of their historical accuracy, meaning to preserve the historicity of the group and needing to briefly describe them in the process. Tacitus is far from being a smoking gun. Nice try.


Before you try to tell me it wouldn't be possible for early christians to manufacture a historical character, look at the Roswell incident. What most likely actually happened there is that a guy found some discarded foil and wood in the desert. By now, there's a large following of people who believe they found a whole flying saucer and alien bodies that were later autopsied. Another fun fact about aliens: virtually every purportedly true abduction story describes aliens that showed up on tv in the 1950s about a week before the first such abduction story was reported. Here's another one: the Chupa Cabra was first sighted by a woman in the 1990s, and the original description of the creature perfectly fit the creature from the '90s movie Species, and the lady later admitted that she might have been influenced by having recently seen Species when she made that report. Don't even get me started on Bigfoot. The point is, people (even some who should know better) believe whole piles of bullshit on bad evidence sometimes. If it's this common today, imagine what it would be like with no cameras around and no presses to print things on.

Of course I can have it both ways. Think this through:

Dude. No you cannot. I will gladly explain why. Again.


Your argument is an asinine dodge using the same logic you used before. You CANNOT use the same facts that historians use to argue the marginally possible existence of a historical Jewish zealot named Yeshua to argue for the existence of your god-man from the sky. One of those claims is extraordinary. One of them is not. One of them does not require extraordinary evidence. One of them does. You do not have extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary person, or even extraordinary actions. You are trying to use the same facts that point to the existence of a regular guy to point to the existence of a not regular guy. How much plainer can I make this? It does not work. It is a different standard of evidence.

After 10 years of online apologetics, I can bury you on this point. But I think we have more important issues at hand. We can discuss Catholicism later.

(To be continued...)

After growing up in a ministry family of people who routinely brought their full intellectual power to bear when couching their beliefs, I can tell you that I am not impressed by your ten years of online apologetics, nor by any of the points you've presented thus far. I posit that you cannot bury anything but your dick in a bible on this point, and I will gladly get into a debate about the nature of biblical languages if you'd like, but unless you're at minimum close amateur study of that kind of apologetics, that might not be the can you want to kick over. Oscar is a vicious monster, and he has a lot of weapons in there.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd advise you, Randy, not to trust anything you read in a war story to be the gospel truth.  If a soldier tells you, or writes, that a building he took cover in was a red barn......you'll have to find a way to be comfortable with the fact that he may be mis-remembering, telling a little white lie in service of some other part of the narrative (or to avoid telling the -actual- narrative)......or it may have been the glare from mortar flare on white paint......and that's ignoring whether or not it was a barn, or that said soldier can distinguish between a barn and any number of other buildings (or even gives a fuck). Particular to war stories or war journals...don;t get hung up on the details of the type of structure or it's color, that's not the story you're being told...it isn't about a barn, or the color red.

I could tell you true war stories all day, and you'd probably end up noticing that no one ever shoots their rifle, or gets shot...in my war stories. The sun is always shining, the characters are always laughing, the job is always boring. Would you conclude that no one ever shot their rifle or got shot and that being an infantryman was literally a walk in a foreign park..... on the basis of my stories, or would you suddenly appreciate nuance and narrative skill?

[Esquilax]

Ironically, I know the weakness of YOUR argument (and that of Esquilax) when you engage in ad hominem arguments against WLC rather than deal with his ideas instead.

But... you've seen me engage with WLC's ideas. You agreed with me that he was wrong the last time I did that. There's at least three other threads on this board where I've tackled Kalam, several more where I've hit up the Teleological argument, and even just in here I've addressed his arguments regarding the Holy Spirit. What more could I possibly do?

And yet, you continue to argue with me...

Are you not amenable to changing your mind when presented with sufficient evidence to do so?

[pocaracas]

And yet, you continue to argue with me...

Are you not amenable to changing your mind when presented with sufficient evidence to do so?

Are you really expecting him to change his mind?!!

---

---

[The Valkyrie]

You know the strength of the argument when people start referring to WLC.

Who next, Ken Ham?  Ray Comfort? Kent Hovind (with a screaming match because we refuse to refer to him as 'Dr')?

Ironically, I know the weakness of YOUR argument (and that of Esquilax) when you engage in ad hominem arguments against WLC rather than deal with his ideas instead.

Possibly.  But every debate I've watched from WLC is the same - no counter arguments, just "I know he exists" type comments and desperate attempts to justify the heinous acts of the deity.

Hardly strong debating skills.  It's on par with a child sticking his fingers in his ears, stamping his foot and screaming "I won't listen!"

[Randy Carson]

As for Tacitus, he lived from 56 C.E. (well after human Jesus would have lived, died, and floated back up to heeeven) to 117 C.E. and wrote his annals during the later part ofhis life (he died before completing it), putting most if not all of those writings a good 100 years after Jesus would have lived. In an era without modern documentation or science where life spans were averaging 50 years, it is remarkably easy to pass off a fictional character as a historical one to such an extent that Tacitus would have had no reason to disbelieve the story. Also, as I stated before and regardless of what apologists want to argue, he could have easily been writing about the beliefs of the christians regardless of their historical accuracy, meaning to preserve the historicity of the group and needing to briefly describe them in the process. Tacitus is far from being a smoking gun. Nice try.

Apparently Bart Ehrman and his colleague, James Rives, disagree with your position on Tacitus.

In a blistering response to Richard Carrier's negative review of Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman addressed many of Carrier's objections and errors in great detail. The following on Tacitus should serves as a wake-up call for you Redbeard.

Ehrman writes:

While I’m on the Tacitus reference.   At one point in my book I indicate that “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” that the reference to Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55).   Carrier says this is “crap,” “sloppy work,” and “irresponsible,” and indicates that if I had simply checked into the matter, I would see that I’m completely wrong.   As evidence he cites Herbert W. Benario, “Recent Work on Tacitus (1964-68) The Classical World 63.8 (April 1970) pp. 253-66, where several scholars allegedly indicate that the passage is forged.
     
In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation.   What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t.   I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago, and so far as I know, they have no followers among trained experts today.  In that connection it is surprising that Carrier does not mention Benario’s more recent discussions, published as “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1969-1973,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1974-1983,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1984-1993,” “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1994-2003.”   Or rather it is not surprising, since the issue appears to have died on the vine (one exception: a brief article in 1974 by L. Rougé).   I might also mention that there is indeed a history of the question that goes before the mid-20th century.  I first became aware of it from one of the early mythicists, Arthur Drews, whose work, The Christ Myth (1909) raises the possibility.  But Drews did not invent the idea; it goes  back at least to the end of the 19th century in the work of P. Hochard in 1890, De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite.   I’m not sure if Carrier is familiar with this scholarship or not.  But my point is that I was not trying to make a statement about the history of Tacitus scholarship; I was stating what scholars today think.

     But Carrier’s objection to my view did take me a bit off guard and make me wonder whether I was missing something, whether there were in fact scholars of Tacitus who continue to think the reference to Jesus was an interpolation in his writings.   I am a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, not of Tacitus!  And so I asked one of the prominent scholars of the Roman world, James Rives, who happens now to teach at UNC.  Anyone who wonders about his credentials can look them up on the web; he’s one of the best known experts on Roman religion (and other things Roman) internationally.    He has given me permission to cite him by name, as he is willing to stand by what he says.

     My initial email question to him was this:  

I’m wondering if there is any dispute, today, over the passage in Annals 15 where he mentions Jesus (whether there is any dispute over its authenticity).

     His initial reply was this:

I’ve never come across any dispute about the authenticity of Ann. 15.44; as far as I’m aware, it’s always been accepted as genuine, although of course there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind it.  There are some minor textual issues (the spelling ‘Chrestianos’ vs. ‘Christianos’, e.g.), but there’s not much to be done with them since we here, as everywhere in Tacitus’ major works, effectively depend on a single manuscript.

I then asked him about the article Carrier mentioned with respect to Benario, and this was his reply:

Benario’s article cited below is one of a series he did over a period of decades, in which he summarizes other people’s work on Tacitus; they’re an extremely useful bibliographical resource (although there’s no reason that a non-specialist would be aware of them!).  I’ve just checked this particular article, and can only assume that the particular work to which your adversary makes reference is mentioned on p. 264: Charles Saumagne, ‘Tacite et saint Paul’, Revue Historique 232 (1964) 67-110, who according to Benario ‘claims that the Christians are not mentioned in 15.44, that there is an ancient interpolation, taken from book 6 of the Histories, which were written after the Annals, and that Sulpicius Severus was responsible for the transposition’.  So I’m wrong that no classicist has argued that the passage is not authentic.  Saumagne may not be alone: Benario cites another article on the same page whose author ‘recalls that Christians are not linked with the fire before the time of Sulpicius Severus’.  Nevertheless, I would still point out that 1) Saumagne does argue that this is an interpolation, but only from another of Tacitus’ works; 2) the whole thing sounds like a house of cards to me, since Histories Book 6 doesn’t exist and so can’t provide a firm foundation for an argument; 3) this is clearly a minority opinion, since I’ve never encountered it before.

He then pursued the matter further (he’s a *great* colleague!), and wrote me this:

I’ve had a quick look at the two articles in question.  Saumagne does think that the text has been interpolated, but also that the reference to Christ being killed under Pontius Pilate comes from a lost portion of Tacitus’ Histories.  His argument seems very shaky to me, but in either case it doesn’t affect your own, since Saumagne thinks that Tacitus knew about and referred to Jesus, which is the main thing for you.  The other article, by Koestermann (an editor of Tacitus), argues that Tacitus made a mistake in associating the Chrestiani with Christ, but doesn’t say anything about the reference to Christ not having been written by Tacitus himself.  There may be scholars who’ve argued that the reference to Christ is a later interpolation into the text, but neither of these two did, and I certainly don’t know of any others.

I think that’s enough to settle it.  I really don’t think what I said was “irresponsible,” “sloppy,” or “crap.”

Now, Redbeard, what about your own view that Tacitus was simply relying on hearsay from others?

If Ehrman agrees that the Tacitus passage mentioning Jesus is not a Christian forgery or interpolation, then what is it? An honest mistake by an otherwise scrupulous historian whose work is praised for its quality by scholars who specialize in that field?

Or something that is far more problematic for Jesus Mythicists: the truth?

[Randy Carson]

Ironically, I know the weakness of YOUR argument (and that of Esquilax) when you engage in ad hominem arguments against WLC rather than deal with his ideas instead.

But... you've seen me engage with WLC's ideas. You agreed with me that he was wrong the last time I did that. There's at least three other threads on this board where I've tackled Kalam, several more where I've hit up the Teleological argument, and even just in here I've addressed his arguments regarding the Holy Spirit. What more could I possibly do?

Oh, gee, I dunnoo...continue to address the ideas without attacking the man, perhaps?

And yet, you continue to argue with me...

Are you not amenable to changing your mind when presented with sufficient evidence to do so?

Of course. Provided that I believe the source to be reliable. In your case, I know your animosity toward the Christian faith; consequently, I am skeptical of everything you say. So, I listen to your ideas...refute some...discount most...and agree occasionally. I would be thrilled to think that i'm getting that much in return.

[The Grand Nudger]

A problem?  Because people believed in jesus?  People believe in jesus today, despite his absence.  Clearly, jesus doesn't need to participate or be present in order for the faithful to believe.

[Minimalist]

 

In my defense, I need to stress that my comment had to do with what scholars today are saying about the Tacitus quotation.   What I say in the book is that I don’t know of any scholars who think that it is an interpolation, and I don’t.   I don’t know if Carrier knows of any or not; the ones he is referring to were writing fifty years ago

Sounds like Ehrman got nailed and he's getting desperate.  Carrier's own research dismisses the Tacitus reference and gives a lucid explanation of its derivation.

I know you prefer jesus bullshit, Randy, so I won't bother directing you to it.  You stick to your silly bible.  It's all you are good for.

[Pizza]

The point at issue is the whether there was a resurrection of the dead body of Jesus. This is a claim about biology. Dead bodies don't normally resurrect. Something as unlikely to me as ghosts existing and the apostles seeing a ghost, not a resurrected body, would be more likely than a body resurrecting. People report ghost sightings more than bodily resurrections, this is all common sense.
Give me evidence like biologists resurrecting dead people after days of being dead, and I'd likely change my mind or at the very least be more sympathetic to Christianity. It doesn't matter how reliable the gospels are. They are not enough. Claiming a dead man walks again is a claim about biology of the human body. You can't ignore biology and the evidence on this. Assuming theism is not enough, because again the question at issue would be whether god causes dead men to walk. According to the common sense evidence, dead bodies don't get up after days, so god likely doesn't resurrect the dead. That's a natural theology argument against the resurrection of Jesus for you. Resurrections aren't a dime-a-dozen and if they are that would undermine the theological importance of Jesus's resurrection.
You can't just assume god did in fact resurrect Jesus, because that assumes Christian views of god are true which begs the question because the goal for the arguing for the resurrection is to argue for the truth of the Christian view of god.
Please stop dancing around these problems.