Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Kaninchen]

But this would be a poor choice for a “narrative device”. Anyone hearing that lowly women discovered the empty tomb would be inclined to dismiss it simply because no one thought women’s word could be trusted.

Whether it was a good or a bad narrative device would depend on how audiences responded to: “Enter Mourning Women, Upstage Left” etc.

I realise that you find the grabbing at “Oh dear, women witnesses, how embarrassing!” as a terribly powerful argument but it’s just blatant ad-hockery to my eyes because it wasn’t a court case and the women soon gave way to men anyway.

[Incidentally, I do have to congratulate you on not falling for the 'All Greek to me" lure earlier on]

Ah, a true ad hominem. You’re attacking ME (as desperate) as opposed to dealing with the strength of the point itself which you reluctantly agree has some merit.

No, Randy, it was a true insult - I’d already disposed of your argument.

 

[epostle]

Whether it was a good or a bad narrative device would depend on how audiences responded to: “Enter Mourning Women, Upstage Left” etc.

I realise that you find the grabbing at “Oh dear, women witnesses, how embarrassing!” as a terribly powerful argument but it’s just blatant ad-hockery to my eyes because it wasn’t a court case and the women soon gave way to men anyway.

[Incidentally, I do have to congratulate you on not falling for the 'All Greek to me" lure earlier on]

No, Randy, it was a true insult - I’d already disposed of your argument.

If the Gospel writers were making up the Resurrection, they would have used MEN as the first discoverers to add credibility. The point is, they didn’t need to add anything.

In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.
Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True

Debunking the Conspiracy Theory: 7 Arguments Why Jesus’ Disciples Did Not Lie

 

[Kaninchen]

If the Gospel writers were making up the Resurrection, they would have used MEN as the first discoverers to add credibility. The point is, they didn’t need to add anything.

I’m sure that Randy will be very grateful for your support but, to me, it’s just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, Randy, it was a true insult - I’d already disposed of your argument.

Oh.

Well, save that for the other forum.

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh.

Well, save that for the other forum.

I don’t think being a poster there would be as entertaining really - even if it’s fun to read from time to time.

 

[SonOfMan]

If the Gospel writers were making up the Resurrection, they would have used MEN as the first discoverers to add credibility. The point is, they didn’t need to add anything.

In first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve as witnesses. If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered worthless. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally inconvenient.
Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True

Debunking the Conspiracy Theory: 7 Arguments Why Jesus’ Disciples Did Not Lie

So your argument is that because something is unconventional, it must be true?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So your argument is that because something is unconventional, it must be true?

No, the argument is that it was EMBARASSING to the early Church that women were the first sources of information about the empty tomb because anyone who heard this would scoff at them for repeating “women’s tales”.

The only reason for including such information would be because it was true.

 

[Contarini]

Oh, c’mon…you know you love me.

Of course. You’re my brother in Christ. You’re just sometimes too enthusiastic in your apologetics. . . .

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course. You’re my brother in Christ. You’re just sometimes too enthusiastic in your apologetics. . . .

Edwin

 

[epostle]

If these were fictional accounts, it would be the easiest thing in the world to have Jesus appearing directly to the male disciples, instead of this weird two-step process in which first the women discover the tomb, and then Jesus starts appearing to people (just to whom, and in what order, varies from one source to another).

Sure, the point might be to reinforce the theme of Jesus doing the opposite of what he would be expected to do, and yes, there’s plenty of OT precedent for that. But it isn’t, as far as I know, a theme that anyone particularly emphasized except where reality forced them to. From a skeptical point of view, this common Biblical theme would be an attempt to adjust to disappointed expectations. We think that if YHWH is a powerful god and has made a covenant with us, then the city will never falls. The city falls. Oops! That shows that YHWH is even more powerful than we thought–so powerful that even the Babylonians are instruments in his cosmic plan.

We thought that the return from exile would lead to a glorious restoration, better than anything we had before. Actually it leads to hundreds of years of sort of puttering along, often under pagan domination. Oops! This shows that God’s plans are more long-term than we thought, and that there will be a final restoration inaugurated by the Messiah.

We thought that the Messiah would defeat the Romans and set up a glorious kingdom. Oops! the guy we thought was the Messiah got crucified. That shows that God’s plan for the world is so profound that he redeems the world by death, and overcomes death by resurrection.

If God did that, we’d think that Jesus would appear to his leading male disciples. Oops! Actually the first report was brought by women. Well, that’s just part of the pattern established so far.

My point is that these “oops” moments were consistently imposed from outside.

Yes, it’s possible that Mark, seeing the pattern, would invent a story in which women saw the tomb first. But it doesn’t seem very likely.

In the end, with the resurrection, we face the old Sherlock Holmes choice: impossible vs. improbable. A lot of us find Sherlock Holmes’ answer to be, well, improbable.

Edwin

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Sherlock Holmes

“if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.”
Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, p. 26

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fact #5: The Tomb Was Empty

The Jerusalem Factor

Jesus was publically executed in Jerusalem. His post-resurrection appearances and the empty tomb were first proclaimed there rather than in a small village in Galilee. The significance of this is that it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body was still in the tomb. His enemies would only have to produce the body and put it on public display in order for the hoax to be shattered. There is nothing but silence in the Jewish and Roman writings regarding anyone retrieving the body of Jesus from the tomb. Celsus, the second-century critic of Christianity, would have leapt at the chance to discredit the Church if such a story or rumor was available to him. Anything but an empty tomb would have been a devastating blow to the resurrection account.

Enemy Attestation

The scriptures attest to the empty tomb, but so do Jesus’ enemies, albeit indirectly. The gospels record that the Jews claimed that Jesus’ disciples stole the body—thus admitting that they tomb was empty. This is recorded by multiple independent sources (Mt. 28:12-13, Justin Martyr, Trypho 108, Tertullian, De Spectacullis 30). The theft of the body (and thus the empty tomb) is the only opposing theory offered by Jesus’ enemies.

The Testimony of Women

The gospel message spread by the early Church hangs upon the resurrection of Jesus. As Paul noted,

1 Corinthians 15
13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

And yet, the gospels are clear that the empty tomb was discovered not by Peter, James and John, the “pillars” of the Church but by Mary Magdalene and one or more other women. Thus, women are the primary or first witnesses of the empty tomb. In our day, this would pose no problem, but for the Jews and the Romans, this fact created enormous problems for the disciples seeking to spread the gospel message because in that culture and era, women had no legal standing whatsoever. In his work, the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus states plainly:

But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak the truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15)

Both the Talmud and the Roman historian, Suetonius, express similar negativity toward the testimony of women. As a result, the idea that the disciples concocted a fanciful story about Jesus rising from the dead and then placing that story into the mouths of women whose testimony would not be received favorably by the very audiences that the disciples were hoping to persuade is unlikely.

The empty tomb of Jesus is, therefore, well-evidenced for historical certainty. Former Oxford University church historian, William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

The empty tomb does not, by itself, provide evidence for the resurrection of Jesus because other theories may explain the cause of the empty tomb. However, taken together with the beliefs of the disciples, as well as Paul and James, that they had seen the risen Jesus, the empty tomb provides powerful support in favor of the resurrection.

 

[cornbread_r2]

If anyone is interested, here is one response to the “minimal facts” argument from blogger Matthew Ferguson.

 

[epostle]

If anyone is interested, here is one response to the “minimal facts” argument from blogger Matthew Ferguson.

The author of the above blog link is one of the “Jesus Seminar” crowd. Reading it could be toxic. There are some interesting comments on the article, particularly the one posted by Paulus (NT scholar). Scroll 3/4 down.

Here are a few snippets:

“…Now you makes some comments when it is pointed out that what you have written goes completely against the consensus of scholarship you spout some drivel about faith based universities. This is an ad hominem as you automatically assume that all believing scholars have non-academic agendas and are out to commit pious fraud…”

“…You largely base your views on the work of Richard Carrier who is not a NT scholar and Robert Price. The latter holding views that are so extreme and which have been rejected by all Historical Jesus Scholars. Even Ehrman attacked his views. On top of that he holds that Paul did not exist and his letters were written by Marcion in an attempt to harmonize (or something like that). If you said any of that to the worlds leading experts on Paul you would get laughed at as Paul’s existence is without doubt yet Price treat’s his existence with far more skepticism than any other classical writer. So as we can see you are entirely basing your views on a few extreme scholars out of your agenda…”

“…Then fact that as an academic , you would even post something from infidels .com clearly demonstrates your bias and agenda. Are you a historian or atheist activist? because I seriously don’t know…”

 

[cornbread_r2]

The author of the above blog link is one of the “Jesus Seminar” crowd. Reading it could be toxic.

ad hominem

There are some interesting comments on the article, particularly the one posted by Paulus (NT scholar). Scroll 3/4 down.

Here are a few snippets:

…]

Where does Paulus identify himself as a NT scholar? If you were going to focus on the comments – rather than the actual article – you might have picked one that wasn’t full of strawmen, red herrings and ad hominems.

 

[oldcelt]

There can be no proof for a supernatural event…it is a matter of faith.

John

 

[Kaninchen]

I think the hope with this kind of mechanistic apologetics is that, with enough smoke and mirrors, the flogging of dead horses might be mistaken for something else.

I can sort of understand that it might be useful for things like steadying waverers or getting missing sheep back into the fold but, as a tool for taking on non-believers - not really.

I may be completely wrong and Randy might be able to assure us that scores of Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and so on are contacting him daily and thanking him for curing their blindness to Jesus but I doubt it. On the other hand, at the moment he seems to be having considerable success at entertaining/annoying the denizens of an Atheist message board and - my guess - enjoying every minute of it.

 

[Kaninchen]

If anyone is interested, here is one response to the “minimal facts” argument from blogger Matthew Ferguson.

Interesting link, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the hope with this kind of mechanistic apologetics is that, with enough smoke and mirrors, the flogging of dead horses might be mistaken for something else.

I can sort of understand that it might be useful for things like steadying waverers or getting missing sheep back into the fold but, as a tool for taking on non-believers - not really.

I may be completely wrong and Randy might be able to assure us that scores of Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and so on are contacting him daily and thanking him for curing their blindness to Jesus but I doubt it. On the other hand, at the moment he seems to be having considerable success at entertaining/annoying the denizens of an Atheist message board and - my guess - enjoying every minute of it.

Have you noticed, kaninchen, that for all the bluster, no one has actually attempted to refute the material that I have presented?

And how could they? Habermas and Licona are simply pointing out what is known from NON-biblical sources (Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) and from pure logic (women would not be the most respected witnesses of the resurrection, etc.).

Eventually, we come to the theories explaining the facts, and that’s where I really expect to have some fun! (Somewhere, some fish in a barrel should be getting awfully nervous.)

 

[Kaninchen]

Have you noticed, kaninchen, that for all the bluster, no one has actually attempted to refute the material that I have presented?

I expect that they’re still trying to find the minimal facts hidden in the bluster, Randy.

And how could they? Habermas and Licona are simply pointing out what is known from NON-biblical sources (Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) and from pure logic (women would not be the most respected witnesses of the resurrection, etc.).

Eventually, we come to the theories explaining the facts, and that’s where I really expect to have some fun! (Somewhere, some fish in a barrel should be getting awfully nervous.)

I’m sure nobody would have the slightest doubt that your evidence has convinced you, it’s whether it convinces anybody else that might matter more to an apologist - I would have thought so, anyway.

I do think you should consider asking a Catholic friend or two to look at what you’re doing over there and give you some feedback as to how it’s going. I can see that you’re having great fun, it suits your aggressive approach, but is it doing anything other than confirming their prejudices while you rehash arguments they’ve seen time after time?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I expect that they’re still trying to find the minimal facts hidden in the bluster, Randy.

I have quoted or referenced ancient Jewish, Roman and non-biblical sources such as:

Josephus
Tacitus
Mara Bar Serapion
Lucian of Samosata
The Talmud
Clement of Rome
Polycarp of Smyrna
Irenaeus of Lyons
Papias
Origen
Hegesippus
Eusebius
Clement of Alexandria

I have quoted numerous passages from books contained in the New Testament which, yes, are of historical value.

And I have also cited modern scholars as diverse as Craig Blomberg, Mary Healy, William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.

From you we have?

:compcoff:

Well, if you think of something…let us know.

I’m sure nobody would have the slightest doubt that your evidence has convinced you, it’s whether it convinces anybody else that might matter more to an apologist - I would have thought so, anyway.

It is precisely this kind of evidence that does convince skeptics, atheists and Jews to accept Jesus as their savior. Of course, you have to actually think about it, but the testimonies of converts from all backgrounds are available in bookstores and on the web.

I do think you should consider asking a Catholic friend or two to look at what you’re doing over there and give you some feedback as to how it’s going. I can see that you’re having great fun, it suits your aggressive approach, but is it doing anything other than confirming their prejudices while you rehash arguments they’ve seen time after time?

I have. None of them wanted to put up with the abusive language and blasphemous images that are commonly employed instead of real arguments.