Reasonable Doubt

[Tantum_ergo]

The point is, pat, that just because something has been the case in ‘modern’ times (as you give with your example of the Declaration of Independence) does not make it the ‘sine qua non’ .

You are asking us to accept, not that the resurrection is or is not an event (I know that you yourself believe in it), but that, according to a very limited and modern ‘definition’ of the words ‘historical’ event, anything ‘supernatural’ such as the resurrection cannot be proven to ‘be’ a historical event. Which is balderdash.

I guess that, even though there were witnesses to the events at Fatima (the sun’s dancing), this event cannot be seen as ‘historical’ by your criteria but simply as a manifestation of either mass hysteria, or explainable by ‘scientific’ means alone and thus not ‘supernatural’ at all. IOW, it is ‘historical’ if it can be explained as not being supernatural; if it is supernatural then of course it is not historical. The idea that it could be both ‘historical’ AND ‘supernatural’ seems to give you the heebie-jeebies–why, I am not sure.

And that is another example of the trap that quite honest and reasonable people are falling into–the idea that one ‘has’ to accommodate to the ‘worldview’ and ‘mindset’ of others simply because they ‘say’ that a ‘religious’ view that involves ‘supernatural events’ cannot be evaluated by ‘reason’ or "science’ or ‘history’ etc. Since when did this view become itself an absolute that we must abide by it, and none other? When did science assume the god-like power of infallibility in that we ‘must’ take only its definitions and its theories as ‘gospel’ purely on the basis of its own claims?

Real science, of course, makes no such claim to infallibility. Real science does not automatically ‘exclude’ a phenomenon on arbitrary bases. Real science has existed before the ‘Enlightenment’ and exists today alongside the pseudosciences, often so closely entwined that one can hardly tell the two apart.

And this real science (real history, etc.) has no problem seeing the Resurrection as both an historical event (existing in real time) and as a supernatural event. One does not preclude the other. Why would one imagine anything else?

 

[patg]

The point is, pat, that just because something has been the case in ‘modern’ times (as you give with your example of the Declaration of Independence) does not make it the ‘sine qua non’ … One does not preclude the other. Why would one imagine anything else?

I do think that most of this is semantics. The issues I have (which, of course aren’t any big deal) are:

• People throw around the term “historic” as if it has a generic “everyone knows what it means” meaning. There are, however, very significant differences depending on the context. To an modern academic historian, there are strict rules and standards that govern the investigation of any event in the past. The historicity of resurrection story cannot be significantly established using any of them. You may say that this is merely our modern approch and that it is too narrow, or too whatever. Nevertheless, this is the current standard and, more importantly, it is the standard I am referring to and I have tried to make it clear that I am arguing based specifically on that standard. That is all I have been saying and if others think that is all the wrong way to look at this, that is fine for them. It is the only approach that makes sense to me.
• As I have said in other threads, ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.
  Saying that the resurrection is a historical event only makes sense in the context of Christian history and faith perspective. If you change the lens from historian to anything else you can see it differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, I am merely trying to argue that people should recognize and admit that this is what they are doing.

 

[Nick]

It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking.

It is acceptable because these ‘modern’ historical methods are faulty because they presuppose that miracles are impossible, and they therefore conclude that any occurence of miracles in history are an untrustworthy account without any ability to disprove the validity of these miracles.

 

[utunumsint]

Here is a quote from John P. Meyer in the New Jerusalem Bible Commentary. 78:57

Since the Jesus of history is by definition the Jesus who is open to empirical investigation by any and all observers, the risen Jesus lies outside the scope of such investigation (as now stated formally by the PBC…) This does not mean that the resurrection is not real, but rather that the resurrection is an event that in itself transcends time and sace (hence the term “metahistorical”) as Jesus enters into eternal life in his Fathers presence. Certain claimed effects of the resurrection (the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances) do belong to our world of time and space but are more properly treated in a history of the early church. Suffice it to say that the empty-tomb traditions should not be dismissed automatically as “late legends.” Mark and John preserve two different versions of a story that in its outline seems to belong to some stream of early Christian tradition (see W. Craig. NTS 31 [1985] 67 n. 88, for a list of exegetes affirming some form of historicity… That there were witnesses known by name who claimed that the risen Jesus appeared to them (1 Cor 15:5-8), that these witnesses included disciples of the historical Jesus who had deserted him out of fear and then did a remarkable volte face after his disgraceful death, that these disciples were not dememted incompetents but people capable of intelligent propagation of a new movement, and that some of these disciples laid down their lives for the truth of their resurrection-experiences- are all historical facts. How people react to these facts and to the historical Jesus brings one beyond empirical investigation into the sphere of religious decision, of belief or unbelief.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Pat, I think you need to start reading some ‘older’ history textbooks. Modern history, to quote Henry Ford, is the bunk.

Modern historians make no secret that their history is tailored to their personal worldview. They boast of it in their introductions, for heaven’s sake! They are proud of being biased! Back in the day of my youth history was just beginning (as a study) on this long skid into pseudohistory. My esteemed brother-in-law, (himself 30 years older than I) and a history professor, saw this trend with sadness (he died in the early 90s). Since he knew that I shared his love of things historical, he let me read many of his texts. . .and some of them dated back to the 19th century.

Let me tell you, the ‘older’ texts, with their balanced view (the idea being, then, to present history as it happened, without particular bias instead of collecting what facts supported one’s worldview, and ignoring the rest), are head and shoulders above modern dreck. Modern texts have no interest in telling us what actually happened; modern texts ignore what happened and endlessly speculate on what so-and-so “THOUGHT” rather than attending to what so-and-so DID, resorting to the interminable “so-and-so’s actions bely his obvious thought and intention which were exactly opposite of his actions but the actions were forced upon him by circumstance” (if ‘so-and-so’ actions contradict the historian’s own worldview–but of course, the historian’s worldview is what so-and-so would have espoused IF HE COULD HAVE). If, OTOH, so-and-so’s actions support the historian, well, then so-and-so’s actions represent his obvious thought.

Either way, the historian is darned well going to make sure that anything ‘good’ is claimed to espouse HIS world view. And if the actions seem to contradict it, then the poor so-and-so was coereced (usually by the nasty CC which is almost always completely antithetical to the modern historian’s worldview).

 

[Magicsilence]

I do think that most of this is semantics. The issues I have (which, of course aren’t any big deal) are:

• People throw around the term “historic” as if it has a generic “everyone knows what it means” meaning. There are, however, very significant differences depending on the context. To an modern academic historian, there are strict rules and standards that govern the investigation of any event in the past. The historicity of resurrection story cannot be significantly established using any of them. You may say that this is merely our modern approch and that it is too narrow, or too whatever. Nevertheless, this is the current standard and, more importantly, it is the standard I am referring to and I have tried to make it clear that I am arguing based specifically on that standard. That is all I have been saying and if others think that is all the wrong way to look at this, that is fine for them. It is the only approach that makes sense to me.
• As I have said in other threads, ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.
  Saying that the resurrection is a historical event only makes sense in the context of Christian history and faith perspective. If you change the lens from historian to anything else you can see it differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, I am merely trying to argue that people should recognize and admit that this is what they are doing.

Hi patg,

I think the reasons you are giving for rejecting the resurrection on a purely historical basis are far too shallow.

If you apply the same rigorous attitude towards the seige of Jerusalem (A.D 70) then it too must be denied from a historical basis, yet it is not by modern historians.

Moreover, the abundance of literature on the Christian faith, and the fact that writing it produced no gain whatsoever for the authors, further cements the idea that (despite your opinion in the contradictory nature of the gospels), the Christians were witnessing to a Truth.

God Bless!

 

[utunumsint]

Here are some articles about the historicity of Jesus and the empty tomb by William Lane Craig, if you are interested. You have to registed to get access, but it is free.

Ut

 

[patg]

Hi patg,

I think the reasons you are giving for rejecting the resurrection on a purely historical basis are far too shallow.

If you apply the same rigorous attitude towards the seige of Jerusalem (A.D 70) then it too must be denied from a historical basis, yet it is not by modern historians.

Moreover, the abundance of literature on the Christian faith, and the fact that writing it produced no gain whatsoever for the authors, further cements the idea that (despite your opinion in the contradictory nature of the gospels), the Christians were witnessing to a Truth.

God Bless!

Basically it doesn’t matter why you believe at all - it is what you believe that counts.

But, to wrap things up, I don’t think it matters at all which historian you use, modern or ancient, there are no Roman history books and no 21st century history books which refer to the resurrection as an event in history. There are no resurrection stories. There are only very contradictory (and I don’t see that word as “my opinion” at all but I’d be happy to discuss it) post-resurrection appearance tales by followers made long after the event all of whom were already deep into the faith. This is so shallow that if there were anything else it wouldn’t even be worth mentioning.

We still have Matthew reporting that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts - the gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. And you think we should be easily convinced by the reports we have???

Other religions are just as sure as Catholics that their miracles happened and that we are wrong, the only difference is where one puts one’s faith and the fact that it is always easy to believe one’s own miracles as true and find fault with the others.

But, as I said above, if thinking it is a proveable historical event works for you, it doesn’t really matter.

 

[utunumsint]

We still have Matthew reporting that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts - the gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. And you think we should be easily convinced by the reports we have???

You seem like a well educated person with a thorough kowledge of the historical critical method and those who use it. Are these statements a result of your investigations into HC, or did you come to this before your research? If it is the first, it makes me wonder if the search for historically verifiable evidence in the NT is antithetical to a healthy faith. (Whether it is approved by the Vatican or not).

I think one of the chief purposes of the new testament is to consolidate and solidify a faith in the ressurected Lord. Does this sifting of each sentence and phrase in search of historically verifiable evidence help increase a person’s faith at all?

If you look at someone like William Craig, he seems to have a good handle on how HC works, but he also seems to trust the authors more than others do. For example, he might take Matthew’s statements about the apostle’s doubts as merely a natural incredulity with regard to the supernatural events they were experiencing. Or perhaps the contradictions you mentioned, a natural result of the subjective recollections each one reports.

Of course, I can’t speak for Craig… these are my thoughts. But am I really being naive in thinking this way? Based on the evidence we have regarding the Apostles and the Gospel writers, should I distrust their report? Is not the fact that they are deeply commited to the Gospels support for the evidence they present (wether first hand or from others)?

I don’t want to paint to sharp a contrast, and I am not a literalist, but your statments, and the statements from many other Biblical scholars make me wonder about it. Perhaps we should take another look at the unverifyable information, and see if, although improbable, they might really be true, and give the authors the benefit of the doubt. Do those who use HC dismiss too much without due regard to the possibility that they might be wrong and the Gospel writers are providing accurate information…however improbable? Would not the attitude I just describe be a reasonable form of humility given the space of two thousand years separating the events and their research?

Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I’m probably flogging a dead horse here, but I can’t let this thread die without posting some contrary views. I’m sure this wont convince Ammonius and patg, but for everyone else…

Here is what William Craig says about why we should trust the Gospel accounts.

But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

1. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

1. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

1. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

1. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

He elaborates on these points here.

Thanks,
Ut

 

[patg]

You seem like a well educated person with a thorough kowledge of the historical critical method and those who use it. Are these statements a result of your investigations into HC, or did you come to this before your research? If it is the first, it makes me wonder if the search for historically verifiable evidence in the NT is antithetical to a healthy faith. (Whether it is approved by the Vatican or not).

It is the former. However, if one interprets the gospels as faith documents and doesn’t try to force fit the stories into our view of history, I think it is all an aid to a more healthy faith.

I think one of the chief purposes of the new testament is to consolidate and solidify a faith in the ressurected Lord. Does this sifting of each sentence and phrase in search of historically verifiable evidence help increase a person’s faith at all?
Ut

We have, here and in other threads, discussed the various genres that are included in the written Gospels: parables, miracle stories, infancy narratives, sermons, sayings, and the connected narrative of the passion, death, and resurrection. We have not, however, attempted to describe the genre “Gospel” as a whole.

The literary form Mark created as he molded traditional materials to meet the needs of his audience is unique. In striving to fulfill a particular need Mark produced a new kind of document. While we cannot point out a literary form familiar to contemporary Americans that is closely related to a Gospel, we can understand the form more clearly by comparing it to some genres with which we are familiar.

Some claim that the Gospel genre is really biography. It is true that if studied as biography the Gospel writers show amazing skill in the revelation of character. In fact, it was centuries, possibly not until the eighteenth century, before biography caught up with the Gospels. However, the motive of the Gospel writers is not simply to describe the person of Jesus. Their theme is the significance of Jesus’ identity and the fact that the act of revelation which took place in Jesus demands a response from the reader. There is no attempt to describe Jesus physically, and very little is said about the first thirty years of his life. Each Gospel writer assumes that a great deal is already known about Jesus. Disciples are introduced without the explanations of their identity that a biographer would give. In fact, the main emphasis in the Gospels is not on Jesus’ life but on his death.

Neither can the Gospels be classified as history. This is not to say that the events reported in the Gospel never happened. They may have. But the intent of the Gospel writers is not the intent of the historian. They are not trying to give an accurate historical account. Rather, they are trying to let the reader understand what those who were contemporary with Jesus did not understand. The Gospel writers do not limit their accounts to what was understood by Jesus’ contemporaries. Rather, they report the events of Jesus’ lifetime in such a way as to make their significance fully realized only in hindsight, visible to their readers.

The Synoptic Gospels were written for believers. Those who read the Gospels read them not out of historical interest but out of a desire to understand more fully events in which they themselves had become intimately involved. The early Christians did not simply remember Jesus in the sense of recalling to mind someone no longer present. They remembered Jesus in the sense of once again becoming members- remembering-uniting themselves to Jesus in order to become one with him in his life, death, and resurrection. *For both the writer and the reader of the Gospels, the goal was not to learn history, not to recall past events, not simply to gain knowledge, but to achieve union and participation in a mystery through which the believer is joined to Jesus. These are FAITH events. *Union and participation, not recollection, were the goals.

The written Gospel is a unique literary form called into being by a new message. Just as the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are unique events, so the works that make these events present to successive generations and incorporate readers into these events are also unique. The need to come to terms with a new reality resulted in a new form, the Gospel. And releasing one’s insistence on a literalistic, historic reading frees one to experience that reality.

 

[utunumsint]

And releasing one’s insistence on a literalistic, historic reading frees one to experience that reality.

Yes, but no one wants to believe in something that is not true, or did not actually happen. In your other posts, you imply that the resurrection rests on shody evidence, that the apostles doubted, that the Gospels are contradictory. You called into question the resurrection.

How can you be a Christian and do this? How can one be a Christian and not believe in the literal historical fact of the resurrection? It doesn’t make sense. You either believe that Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead, or you don’t. If you don’t then you are not a Christian… The conclusions that Jesus did not phisically rise from the dead is not a conclusion that any document from the Vatican has sanction.

Ut.

 

[patg]

Yes, but no one wants to believe in something that is not true, or did not actually happen.

That is true - even though there are many examples where people have believed such things.

In your other posts, you imply that the resurrection rests on shody evidence, that the apostles doubted, that the Gospels are contradictory.

I did not imply those things - I stated that they are all quite true and obvious.

You called into question the resurrection.

No, I did not. I stated that the resurrection is believed as an actual event *as a matter of faith *and that there is no way a formal historian would present it as a historical fact (as is evidenced by the fact that none of them have).

How can you be a Christian and do this?

Easy - Christianity is about faith. If one could prove the resurrection occured, there would be absolutely no need for faith.

How can one be a Christian and not believe in the literal historical fact of the resurrection?

You believe that it is literal and historical because of your faith. However, the term “historical” means entirely different things when spoken of in relation to one’s faith than it does when one is speaking of the analytical analysis of past events.

It doesn’t make sense.

I’ve tried to explain it…

You either believe that Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead, or you don’t.

That is true.

If you don’t then you are not a Christian…

That is true also.

The conclusions that Jesus did not phisically rise from the dead is not a conclusion that any document from the Vatican has sanction.Ut.

And that is true. BUT I never once promoted that conclusion. I merely stated that the truth of the resurrection is a truth of faith and not a historical truth. There is a big difference. Historical truths depend on multiple independent sources, contemporary objective accounts, rules of evidence, and on and on. Rigorous analysis of the resurrection story can never qualify it formally as a “historical event” in the eyes of the true historican. That doesn’t mean that any person of faith should doubt it.

 

[jmcrae]

Most people understand “historical” to mean “really happened at some time in the past.” In that sense of the word, the Resurrection is most certainly a historical event.

 

[Bigwill]

Not sure if this is the right forum. Please move if it is not.

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

Yes, we do have to accept any crazy story from a criminal defendant. Every defendant, no matter how diabolical, has the right to present (or not to present) a defense. And we, as a society, have granted every defendant the right to have that defense considered by a jury of his peers.

I think you’re confusing terms here, though. It does not follow that, because the majority of Americans believe that Jesus rose from the dead (a proposition that, sadly, in my opinion remains a minority one), that juries will have to BELIEVE the defendant. Or, even if they do believe him, that they will have to find that the defendant’s actions were justified or excuseable. It just doesn’t follow.

As an example, just because I happen to believe that Jesus rose from the dead does not mean that I, as a jurror, would believe that a defendant was reasonable in his belief that he had to defend himself against a seventy-three year old woman armed with a deck of pinochle cards. His belief, though possibly true, was unreasonable. And I don’t think there’s any problem in coming to that conclusion.

Why do you?

 

[patg]

Most people understand “historical” to mean “really happened at some time in the past.” In that sense of the word, the Resurrection is most certainly a historical event.

And that is at the heart of the issue here - there is a tremendous difference between what most people mean and what historians determine is what most likely happened. Historical truth is not arrived at by considering what people believe and no matter how much you personally believe it “really happened at some time in the past” you are still speaking with faith and not from a historical perspective.

The resurrection is an event firmly believed to be historical by Christians, not by historians. If it were, no historian would ever leave it out of any discussion of the first century.

 

[jmcrae]

The resurrection is an event firmly believed to be historical by Christians, not by historians. If it were, no historian would ever leave it out of any discussion of the first century.

Are there no Christian historians? Why is the atheistic point of view considered to be the “objective” viewpoint? Isn’t that just as biased as the Christian viewpoint - or even more so, since if “objective” means “God’s point of view” then surely the Christian viewpoint is, by definition, the objective viewpoint.

 

[Mersenne]

Are there no Christian historians? Why is the atheistic point of view considered to be the “objective” viewpoint? Isn’t that just as biased as the Christian viewpoint - or even more so, since if “objective” means “God’s point of view” then surely the Christian viewpoint is, by definition, the objective viewpoint.

Do all Christians consider themselves to be gods?

 

[tdgesq]

Do all Christians consider themselves to be gods?

He didn’t claim that, so why even throw it out? One doesn’t need to be God to come from God’s point of view.

 

[patg]

Are there no Christian historians?

Yes, there are many who write on the history of Christianity. But there is a big difference between writing about what Christians believe and using the analytical tools of historic research to investigate events of the past.

Why is the atheistic point of view considered to be the “objective” viewpoint?

It isn’t. The historian’s point of view is what I have been discussing. This view weighs evidence from all sources, not relying on the beliefs of religious or non-religious groups. It is interesting that many people believe something or that they are willing to die for that belief . However, this is not all that unusual in the human experience and historians must go way beyond such subjective “evidence” when reconstructing past events.

Isn’t that just as biased as the Christian viewpoint - or even more so, since if “objective” means “God’s point of view” then surely the Christian viewpoint is, by definition, the objective viewpoint.

That is your faith-based viewpoint - it is not the definition a historian would use. Supernatural factors are *by definition *outside the realm of human history - they cannot be invesitgated using rules of evidence or verified by any human standard. They may be absolutely true BUT that is a faith statement which is not based on historical evidence. Once again, if the resurrection were historically verifiable, there would be no need for faith, no such thing as the Catholic Faith, and every history book would discuss it.