Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two

Conversation Side Conversation
101
  1. Is still do not believe that you [Joshua] have demonstrated that the historical record associated with Jesus’s Resurrection is factual. In addition, the same can be said about many Christian apologists. I believe, but you will probably beg to differ that my arguments in the Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry do not successfully challenge the reliability of the narratives. I do, and so do others. Unfortunately, and I could be in error, but I believe someone earlier claimed you do not have my book. If you have not read my book, how can you claim that I have not met your requisites?

I believe that I asked earlier: Have you read my text? I could be wrong, but you have not answered that critical question. If your entire criticism is based on Vincent’s lengthy review, that is not fair. So please, a response.

  1. You wrote: "You have not yet explained why we are calling your argument a Gish Gallop."

Response: That was my interpretation of your words. Later, another writer attempted to clarify what you said. What we have here may be “A failure to Communicate.” I do not want to be Cool Hand Luke after those words were spoken [I assume that you saw the movie.]

**3. You wrote: **Your case is severely diminished by this

Response: Respectfully, others and I disagree.

  1. You wrote: Why write a 800 page book to make an obvious point?

Response: I discussed the reason in the first two paragraphs of my text and on xlv, and my homepage, and previously in this blog. Question: Respectfully, have you actually read my text? Continued, that 800-page book was insufficient. Therefore, I am working on Volume 2 [previously discussed]

  1. You wrote: Let us start with this. You have admitted now to putting forward several week arguments

Response: Absolutely CORRECT. Please read my response to your statement located on xlvi where I discuss a baseball analogy. Furthermore, do you think that every argument presented by an apologist or theologian is equally waited? Of course, not. Do you criticize Christian apologists and theologian who present weak arguments to support their case?

  1. is the argument about communion (the blood drinking ritual), one of the strong or one of the weak arguments?

Response: In terms of Jesus’s resurrection, it is not strong. However, it is very strong when you accumulate the numerous falsehoods and “errors” recorded in the Christian Bible. If the drinking blood statement made by Jesus is not historical, other words and actions attributed to him are also dubious. But, you must read my text to know those errors. In my opinion, without reading my text you cannot make any honest evaluation. Theologically the blood drinking AND EATING FLESH ritual is EXTREMELY significant; 1) Jesus is changing the symbolism of the Passover seder = matzah and wine. WOW! Second, if interpreted literally, as some do, Christians are literally drinking blood and eating human flesh [transubstantiation] in direct violation of God’s command. So yes and no to your question.

**7. You wrote: **What you are describing are activities, not a methodology.

Response: numerous times I have detailed my methodology. Please go back and read where I have discussed this topic. Second, since I might be having a senior moment, please define methodology. See below.

  1. You wrote: You still have not brought forward a coherent methodology

Response: Respectfully, totally false. see below.

  1. You wrote: Reading all the arguments out there for the resurrection, and then regurgitating the arguments against them from other sources is not a methodology for adducting what are valid arguments or not.

Response: Respectfully, I disagree. You may not like my methodology but it is a methodology.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology:

Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. It comprises the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge

In my text, I have analyzed numerous methods and principles employed by Christian apologists and theologians who advocate the resurrection. I demonstrate that often, they employ dubious translations, take passages from the Hebrew Bible out of context, employ typology (foreshadowing) and numerology with a Christological lens, etc. But, you must read my book to determine whether or not what I said is true. So please, read my text. It is available at a few libraries and you can obtain an interlibrary loan.

Hating to strike a dead horse, in Volume 2 I will directly analyze The Minimal Fact Approach, best evidences strategy, etc.

  1. You write: You still have not brought forward a coherent methodology

Response: False. How can you make this assertion if you have not read my text? Not fair…

  1. You wrote: I suppose I will just draw attention to the fact that you do not have a historical methodology, and see if there is a way to make sense of your gallop regardless. I’m doubtful though

Response: Please the Wikipedia entry for Historical method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

I discussed:

  1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? [ibid 2-6] See 4-13
  2. Procedures for contradictory sources [throughout my text]
    3. Core principles of determining reliability 676-681

**4. Eyewitnesses 676-681and elsewhere

102

Hi @swamidass. I’m not making a “Were you there?” argument. My point (see my comment #81 above) is that the historical evidence cited in support of the Resurrection by apologists is too weak. I don’t need a videocamera. I’d be happy with a group of a dozen witnesses who saw and heard pretty much the same thing, without any advance warning of the miracle that they witnessed, and who took the trouble to inspect Jesus’ grave and found it empty. Is that too much to ask?

103

So I don’t care what the apologist says. How about the historians?

Also applying the same standards we apply to contemporary events is methodologically flawed, it explains a string of our disagreements. Ken Ham just takes it farther, but it is the same sort of argument.

1 Like
104

Sorry. I’m not sure what your question is getting at. Do you mean: what do most NT historians think about the Resurrection? Or something else?

I think many (perhaps most) historians would agree Jesus was buried, and that the disciples believed that the risen Jesus appeared to them and spoke to them. Whether all of them saw and heard the same thing is historically debatable. I think many (perhaps most) historians would agree that the disciples thought Jesus had left his grave. Whether they personally checked it is another matter. For instance, if they were in Galilee when they saw Jesus, they could hardly have done so.

105

What I mean is what do those following a neutral and well tested historical methodology say, with emphasis on those who have studied other historical questions?

What is there methodology and why? Where do you differ from them and why? What does their methodology tell us about the case you are advancing?

106

I completely agree this is the right direction. Continued assertion that the evidence is inadequate is not helpful.

1 Like
107

Hi @swamidass,

Here’s an article which may help you:

9 Ways to Verify Primary Source Reliability by historian Margot Note. Here’s an excerpt:

  1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
  2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
  3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
  4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
  5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
  6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
  7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
  8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
  9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

From an historical standpoint, there are several points on this list which the Gospels don’t measure up terribly well: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. I think 1, 2 and 7 are my main concerns. With John’s Gospel, I’d add 4 and 5.

See also this article:

How do Historians determine the accuracy or reliability of a source? by a medieval historian.

108

Typing error:
of context Jewish texts will explain, respectfully, why in my opinion (and others), that Christians are in error. [The problem with the computer correcting a text]

Take care

1 Like
109

Please show us examples of historical events from the same time that do “measure up well” to the full set of these standards.

Can you find any that are better attested along all dimensions? I’m doubtful.

Can you find any that are better attested along any single dinemnaion? I think you might be successful here in a few places.

If you can’t produce copious numbers of events satisfying the first questions, this is de facto evidence you are applying the rules in a biased way if you use them to conclude the Ressurection is poorly attested.

Good luck @vjtorley. This is going to take you a long while, unless you plan to concede quickly or dodge. I hope for the former, not the latter.

3 Likes
110

We can compare a source to other contemporary sources: The more sources we have, the better.1 We look at a variety of sources and see how often they converge or diverge on a topic.

From VJT’s citing:

This is what we have, lots of the resurrection accounts. Where are your minimal facts contradicted in these accounts?

1 Like
111

Why 7 though? What reliable evidence, exactly, contradicts the gospels?

1 Like
112

Right off the top of my head, I’d nominate the Roman historians Tacitus, Sallust and Suetonius as superior on most criteria. They’re also much more cautious in weighing up claims, and they’re careful to say where they got their information from. Where the evidence is uncertain, they present it tentatively. Or so I’ve been told. (I’ve read some of Suetonius, but that was a long time ago.)

The only advantage the Gospels have is: more and earlier manuscripts. But on other criteria, Tacitus, Sallust and Suetonius are better.

I’m not saying the Gospels are bad historical sources. By first-century standards, the Synoptic Gospels are quite good, and they do give us lots of useful information about Jesus. But are they reliable enough to establish his Resurrection? Without any interviews with the key witnesses, and without even claims to have spoken to them*, I’d have to say no.

  • John’s Gospel is arguably an exception. However, we don’t know whether the Beloved Disciple was the apostle John. About 20 other candidates have been suggested.

I’ll have to stop here. Must get some shut-eye.

1 Like
113

I’m not asking about sources. I am asking about events. What events from this time are better attested?

1 Like
114

History must take into account the whole picture

That would be a nonsensical way to understand and reconstruct history. Even if, say, all we knew about Pilate was that he was a Roman prefect of Judea who once ruthlessly put down a Jewish rebellion, we would still infer that he was a complex human person with a multitude of motivations and influences just like any politician today. In the absence of a wealth of information, a historian has to resort to logic to speculate about what actually did happen. And often the most reasonable result is to say that we don’t know for sure. You seem to be very eager to jump from historical data that Pilate reacted firmly when faced with rebellions to Pilate was a robotic, cold-blooded ruler who would always do X when faced with situation Y.

Do I believe that it is historically certain that Pilate was reluctant to convict Jesus? If I were a neutral reader, I would conclude that it was possible either way. And because I want to be charitable to the historical documents I am reading, I would accept it at least temporarily for the sake of the story. This is why I told you that I regarded the probability as “50-50” - just pragmatically.

I agree that cultural and legal conventions must be taken into account when trying to interpret what actually happened based on our sources. However, currently I think you are using this principle as a blunt instrument to deny the historicity of anything that goes even slightly against what you think is expected based on these cultural considerations. The reality is that there is not that much historical information about this time and place. Instead of being thrown out as a 5 sigma outlier, the information in the gospels could be used as part of the data set to determine what actually was likely to happen.

We also know that even today, legal and cultural conventions do not completely determine an individual’s actions. For example, suppose I have a historical data point that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Then I read an account from 1970 where someone claims to be denied entry into a restaurant based on their race. Am I justified in saying, this goes against legal convention so it must be made up? Or should I take that as an interesting data point that rules don’t necessarily restrict what could happen in society?

Paring down the psychoanalysis

Well, are we in agreement now to remove from the purely psychological claims from the list of 17? Don’t you want to avoid the accusations of a Gish gallop? Don’t you want quality over quantity - a few very strong arguments, instead of a bunch of weak arguments added on that severely throws into question the rest of your case?

So let’s agree to remove Pilate’s reluctance. I would also argue that f (chief priests’ mockery), and g (the story of the good thief) are in this category. So we are down to 14 claims. Now, you could object to my characterization that I have “rebutted” 3 of your claims, given that I’m sure you have counter-rebuttals available. However, for the sake of progress in the discussion I would urge us to move on to other more interesting arguments compared to psycho-analyzing history.

I would normally would try to push claims a (ritual blood drinking) and b (dying on Passover) into this category as well, but I will hold back because I do not know much about Jewish culture in the 1st century. I hope that someone who actually does will take that up.

Paths Forward in the Exchange

I note that the bulk of your case for the claims h (Jesus’ last word) and n (blood and water) depends on claim i (that there could be nobody near a cross). If the case for claim i collapses, so does h and n. This could be a good topic to focus on next.

Another set of linked claims are j (3 hours of darkness), k (Veil of Temple torn), m (Jewish saints raised) - all are supernatural occurrences linked with Jesus’ death. We could go onto this path next. My basic response is that you are free to suspend judgment about such supernatural occurrences without losing confidence in the overall reliability of the gospels. If this rebuttal works, we would take away 3 more weak claims.

2 Likes
115

Hello Daniel:

Great to hear from you!

You wrote: I note that the bulk of your case for the claims h (Jesus’ last word) and n (blood and water) depends on claim i (that there could be nobody near a cross). If the case for claim i collapses, so does h and n . This could be a good topic to focus on next.

Response: No! Actual another real alternative exists. John 19:31-37 was a literary invention by the author of John to serve his theological agenda and serve an additional agenda to transform a humiliation into an honorable burial… This topic is extensively detailed in my text. in brief:

  1. John incorrectly refers to Ex 12:46
  2. John incorrectly refers to Num 9:12

Besides:

  1. it is impossible for the author of John to claim that no bone was broken during the trial and or crucifixion [no X-rays or MRI].
  2. it is irrelevant if a bone was broken or not: Jesus could NOT have been a KORBAN [Offering] or even symbolize the Passover lamb because he was blemished: scourging and crucifixion. Did you see Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion?

Unequivocally, John states "These things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled [NIV] and “as another Scripture says”… What more proof can one ask than the words of its author?

John does not identify the witness in his narrative, but clearly it hints that it was the “Beloved Disciple” who witnessed Jesus’s crucifixion (Please see John 19:25-27). John 20:30-31 concludes with an exhortation to believe, one that resembles the gospel’s final call to faith. THEOLOGICAL AGENDA? What would any neutral and honest reader think?

Amazingly, neither Mark, Matthew, nor Luke report in their respective burial narratives:

  1. Joseph of Arimathea was a SECRET disciple
  2. Joseph of Arimathea was afraid of the Jews
  3. Nicodemus assisted Joseph
  4. Nicodemus purchased myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds
  5. They bound Jesus in linen cloths WITH SPICES
  6. Jesus was buried in a garden
  7. Jesus was buried in a NEW tomb and in which NO ONE had been buried

Does one honestly believe that Mark, Matthew and Luke, ALL THREE of THEM did not know about these purported details or, in contrast, that they actually knew ALL of these “facts” and ALL THREE of THEM decided to deliberately omit them from their narratives? What would a neutral and honest reader think?

Wouldn’t a neutral observer assume the burial episode was an attempt by the gospel authors to transform: humiliation into honor? Does one honestly believe 100 pounds (approximate) of spices was used to prepare Jesus’s body. Coincidently, this episode seems like one upmanship: compare the burial of R. Gamlilel or King Herod with that of Jesus [N.B More details are in my book.)

Collectively (if you excuse me for using that word), the piercing episode with its blood and water was an invention of its author. Numerous Christian theologians openly discuss its SPIRITUAL SYMBOLISM. Of course, they too, will probably assert that the details are also true. Once again, I will ask: What would a neutral and honest reader think?

Take care

Mike

116

Hello Bill:

A great citation from VJT.

Unfortunately you (and others, except my editors) will need to wait about two years before my Volume 2 is published. However, you have my word, that in about 150 pages, I absolutely refute the MinImal Facts Approach. So, hang in there…

Take care

Mike

117

Hello Joshua:

Part of my earlier response was cut off. My error. Below is the complete list plus an additional comment.

  1. You wrote: I suppose I will just draw attention to the fact that you do not have a historical methodology, and see if there is a way to make sense of your gallop regardless. I’m doubtful though

Response: Please see the Wikipedia entry for Historical method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

A. I discussed

  1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? [ibid pp. 2-6] See pp. 4-13

  2. Procedures for contradictory sources [throughout my text]

3. Core principles of determining reliability pp. 676-681

4. Eyewitnesses pp. 676-681

5. Oral tradition pp. 4-12 and elsewhere

6. Anonymous source pp. 4-12

7. Argument to best evidence [Volume 2]

So I believe that you are in error.

Finally, I should point out that I EXTENSIVELY employed traditional Jewish methodology [Talmudic hermeneutics] when learning / studying texts. You may claim that such an approach is based on Rabbinics: However, it is a time tested methodology. Examples include:
PaRDeS
The Seven rules of R. Hillel
The Thirteen Rules of R. Ishmael
The Thirty-Two Rules of R. Eliezer (especially 26, 27, and 29)

Please, before potential criticizing this methodology, actually take time to diligently investigate its format and its specific rules to UNDERSTAND (and hopefully appreciate) an alternative to traditional, western HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY. If you do not know these rules, it is not fair to criticize them. Similarly, it is not fair for anyone to criticize a book, a play, a movie, a painting, or a concert, if it has NOT been seen / heard.

Take care

Mike

118

This is something the bible itself accepts. In john 6 53 to 68, we find a passage where we find Jesus talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (in a spiritual sense). Many people were offended by this and no longer followed him. Verse 66 records-

66 ](l66) As a result, many of his disciples turned back and no longer associated with him.

When he turned back and asked his disciples why they didn’t leave, they responded as below-

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69 Besides, we have believed and remain convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

There is no doubt that Jesus teachings were deeply offensive to many first century Jews. That’s why they tried to stone him many times and finally crucified him.
However, some were deeply convinced on the Truth of his claims.
Why should this be surprising?

3 Likes
119

In reponse to MJAlter

I’ve already cited an expert on the subject (Craig Evans) that says that everyone who actually writes on this issue disagrees. I’ll address a few of your points.

Paul is reciting a creed and writing to people who already know about the tomb. When people write letters, they don’t spell out everything that their audience already knows. Matthew and Luke are supplementing his account. John is usually thought to be independent of the synoptics and is representative of a different tradition. It can’t be said to evolve from the Synoptic accounts.

Because there is enough evidence to say event A happened but not whether event A1, A2, A3, etc. If I saw a group of kids throw a rock through my window but I can’t determine which one of them threw it, does that mean none of them threw a rock through my window?

Kloner has already been answered by Urban C. von Wahlde in “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll” as well as in his commentary on the Gospel of John.

This approach is called parellomania and is widely discounted by most scholars. The NT writers reference the OT in numerous ways like typology, midrash, mimesis, etc. All these were standard for the time. None of them involve fabrication of events or literary invention. For a scholarly introduction to the subject start with Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by Beale and Carson.

There are far more responsible treatments available than yours like Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Last Supper.

It does nothing of the sort. As I said above, the two fundamental things that made Jesus’ burial dishonorable were the lack of mourning and not being buried in a family tomb. If the gospel writers were as free with facts as you claim they would have changed those two details. They wouldn’t have settled for minor issues.

3 Likes
120

@MJAlter, why did you jump to this thread? This is @vjtorley thread. The two of you are making different arguments, and intertwining them this way makes the conversation very difficult to follow Please explain we shouldn’t move all your posts back to your thread: Alter on The Resurrection: Take Two.

3 Likes