VJ Torley posted a massively long book review of the Resurrection.
1 Like
Yes, I already responded to @vjtorley at the TSZ:
Long and excellent post Vincent. I always appreciate your open mindedness, and willingness to challenge your base assumptions. We need more of that. Honestly, I am not convinced Alterâs arguments, as I have heard many of them before. It seems strange that it appears he does not engage NT Wrightâs work, which is precisely on this point (Resurrection of the Son of God). Moreover, many of these arguments honestly seem to be recycled and long ago debunked. As I understand it, most secular historians in this area are still contending with Wrightâs work, and I do not see any of his key points addressed in this post. I doubt Atler has responded to them (though I havenât read the book), because as of now they are considered unanswered.
This is what Tim McGrew writes me about Alterâs work, and it seems to match my impressions:
âI think it has attracted relatively little attention because Alter is raking together a large number of skeptical claims without regard to evidence and then spinning out fanciful conclusions from them as if they were established facts. He claims, for example, that there were no palm trees in Jerusalem at the time of Jesusâ supposed triumphal entry; therefore, the branches strewn in his path must not have been palms; therefore, the entry into Jerusalem must have taken place at a different time of year and the branches must have been of some other kind. The whole argument went wrong at the first step.â
I admit up front that I havenât read his book, but their is a familiar and unconvincing ring to these arguments. Reminds me of a recent exchange with an atheist about nails in crucifixion, (Did Romans Use Nails in Crucifixion?). Some of his arguments, (e.g. about the blood drinking) presume a strange insistence on literalism (that ignores context) that would box just about anything into incoherence.
I think your review is honest and a a worthy contribution, nonetheless. Iâm looking forward to going through it more carefully. Until then, have you looked NT Wrightâs work yet? (Peace Be With You)
I should also add that Alter is not a historian. There is no evidence he knows much about how historians adjudicate claims. This seems to fall into the general genre of âpsuedohistoryâ among atheists. We can engage with specific points he raises, but there is far to much to engage in totality.
4 Likes
This is what another leading historian wrote me (with a detail removed to protect his identity):
I have little interest in engaging him. I [interacted with him once] âŚand [Atler] was remarkably ungracious and uninformed about the issues. Heâs trying so hard to become THE resurrection critic but has no formal training or much of a following. If his work actually garnered some attention then I may respond.
Sounds quite a bit like evolutionary scientists deciding not to engage YECs and ID. That is how at least two historians I asked about him responded.
2 Likes
If Alter is not seriously considered by historians, it seems irresponsible for a Christian like Torley to write a review boldly proclaiming that the historical case for the Resurrection is done with. I assume that Torley is not a historian or expert in this area. Did he even try to ask othersâ opinion of the arguments before writing that long essay? The analogy would be if a Christian biologist read the God Delusion and proclaimed that Dawkins has demolished the philosophical case for Godâs existence.
4 Likes
@vjtorley, did you consult with anyone while writing that review?
Hi Joshua,
I only just found out about this thread. By the way, the name is âAlter,â not âAtler.â
Iâve been reading and studying arguments for the Resurrection for many many years. Iâve been debating skeptics for many many tears. Alterâs arguments were quite new to me, because he was arguing from a Jewish perspective. And quite a lot of what he had to say about the Passion of Jesus was stuff I hadnât read before.
Naturally, I looked for reviews of Alterâs book, but few people had deigned to read it. When I contacted the McGrews about it, the reaction I got was that it wasnât even worth reading. That annoyed me, because I knew that Alter had made what at least looked like a damned good case. Not to review it in detail seemed snobbish to me. Mike Alter told me heâd asked many people to review his book, but very few had, owing to its length and the fact that it was self-published.
So over a period of a few months, I sat down, reviewed and rewrote the bookâs key arguments, until I had condensed it down to something manageable in size. Then I checked out various claims on the Internet, as well as I could. Alter got a few things wrong, but surprisingly, he got a lot right.
Over that time, I came to see how hollow, lazy and sloppy many arguments for the Resurrection really are. And I say that as someone who regularly takes on skeptics at Debunking Christianity, which I notice no-one around here bothers to do.
Alter is not a historian. Heâs a teacher. Nevertheless, he has made a major effort to read what the historians have to say, on the topic of Jesusâ passion, burial and resurrection. And personally, he has been gracious in his dealings with me.
I continue to be amazed that no-one is buying and reading his book. And I should warn you that his second one is a lot better than the first. Got to head off to work, so Iâll stop there.
4 Likes
OK, I get your motivation better now. So you were trying to provoke more people to take his case seriously. Did you contact anyone else? Habermas? Craig? Licona? N.T. Wright? Sean McDowell? Thereâs just so many people who have written on this issue.
I still think itâs irresponsible to make such a bold proclamation that the historical case for the Resurrection is conclusively âdoomedâ. This is more than intellectual dialogue - some peopleâs faiths could be on the line!
I am not an expert on the historical case for the resurrection, although I have read some books on it and are familiar with the basic outlines of the argument. But as I read parts of your review more closely, I find myself agreeing more and more with the McGrews and others that Alterâs case is speculative, unoriginal, and uncharitable. For example, letâs take a simple example of the âgood thiefâ:
As Alter points out (2015, p. 121), neither of the two thieves was present at Jesusâ interrogation or trials; instead, they were locked up in prison. Nineteenth-century German Protestant theologian Karl Theodor Keimâs question about the good thief still stands: âHow could the robber know anything of the innocence of Jesus or of his return as king?â (quoted in Alter, 2015, p. 121).
You also point out that only Luke has the account of the thief repenting. Sure. But thatâs not necessarily a contradiction. Basic Bible study classes often teach that it could be that both thieves initially heaped insults at Jesus, perhaps not knowing who He was and why He was crucified with âKing of the Jewsâ written on the cross. And then maybe, over the several hours, one of them learned something about Jesusâ circumstances, or saw that Jesus didnât retaliate back at the mockers. He then repented. Also as crucifixion is a very traumatic event, itâs completely within reason to imagine the thieves going through emotional high and lows that result in different reactions. We donât know for sure.
To me, none of this is wild conjecture. Iâm just reading the narratives charitably and reasonably and taking them at face value. Is this improbable? By what criterion are you evaluating improbability? What are the historical standards being used here? (For example, the McGrews use Bayesian logic to make their case. Licona uses several pre-defined criteria for determining best explanation of all the facts.) How can you claim:
I believe that after weighing up these problems, an impartial historian would have no choice but to bet against the overall reliability of the Gospel accounts of Jesusâ crucifixion and resurrection, as they contain too much material which appears highly improbable , when assessed objectivelyâŚ
You seem to use the term âimpartial historianâ a lot in your review, but how do you know what an âimpartial historianâ is? Are you one? Do you have a degree in history? Have you written any historical papers? Do you present regularly at historical conferences?
(Is âimpartial historianâ even a term used in historical papers? In very high-stakes, sensitive issues like the Gospel, defining a clear historical methodology and epistemology is crucial. But I only see it implicitly assumed in your review. One way to do this would be to show how historians have accepted or rejected various other historical claims about the ANE or Classical world, and show how your acceptance or rejection of the good thief is consistent with those criteria. But I donât see something like that. Maybe I missed it?)
What are the proper historical standards for the field that should be used? How can I trust that Alter and you know these standards and are applying them correctly? Maybe my harmonization of the good thief example isnât convincing to you. But that doesnât mean anything since neither of us are experts. This is why I think itâs important to defer to expert opinion before making statements like the above.
So, even after reading your Executive Summary, itâs not clear to me what the original, new, knockdown argument in Alterâs case is. I think part of it is the argument against Jesusâ proper burial. Is this right? Perhaps you can distill the core of the argument to a paragraph or two (instead of the long Executive Summary) so that Christian historians can respond to a succinct case.
In any case, I reiterate my original criticism: itâs irresponsible for a non-expert to make sweeping proclamations that a new work destroys some major argument in the field, especially when that work is also written by a non-expert and hasnât been engaged with other experts. Especially if this is not just an intellectual game, but a spiritual one, too.
3 Likes
@vjtorley great to see you here again.
This is an issue for me also. I think you grant him to much legitimacy in this.
It is clear that Alter is not an impartial historian. He seems neither impartial nor a historian. This is important, because history has rigorous standards. This has been a hotly contested question for a long time too, and it appears he has not engaged the best scholarship here.
Honestly, I do not mean to be rude in this, but the widely varied claims, coming one right after anotherâŚit sounds very much like a Gish Gallop. Not from you, but from him.
3 Likes
Alter claims that a crucified criminal would be thrown in a hole with other criminals and,in most cases, Iâd agree with him, but we do have archeological evidence of at least one crucified man (not Jesus) buried in his familyâs tomb, so that point is more or less moot.
3 Likes
Hi @swamidass
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You write:
It is clear that Alter is not an impartial historian. He seems neither impartial nor a historian. This is important, because history has rigorous standards. This has been a hotly contested question for a long time too, and it appears he has not engaged the best scholarship here.
Honestly, I do not mean to be rude in this, but the widely varied claims, coming one right after anotherâŚit sounds very much like a Gish Gallop. Not from you, but from him.
Iâd like to respond directly to this point.
-
Michael Alter does not claim to be a historian, and I make no claim that he is one, either. He is a teacher, with a career spanning over forty years. Heâs also the author of seven books.
-
Re Alterâs impartiality: let it be noted for the record that on page 24 in chapter 1 of his book, he approvingly quotes the words of Christian apologist, J. Warner Wallace:
Everyone begins with a collection of biases. We must (to the best of our ability) resist the temptation to allow our biases to eliminate certain forms of evidence (and therefore certain conclusions) before we even begin the investigation.
That sounds fair to me.
- The widely varied claims in my post - in particular, the 17 points relating to the last 24 hours of Jesusâ life, on which I claim the Gospels make historically dubious assertions - were my way of framing the 120 contradictions and 113 issues raised in Alterâs book. I reframed the issues in that way, because I grew frustrated with the sheer number of claims made in the book, and my own difficulty in keeping track of them all. 17 was a more manageable number, I thought. The obstacle race metaphor which I invoked in my review was also my own idea. I used that metaphor because I needed to explain why I found Alterâs book so devastating to read. It was one exploded Biblical statement after another, coupled with Alterâs use of eye-opening data and sources that Iâd never heard about before. Thatâs what âbroke the damâ for me. In the end, I came to realize that Iâd been making excuses for Scripture all these years, by making illicit use of âcoulda-woulda-shouldaâ logic. I was happy to let Scripture off the hook if I was able to find a way of reading it whereby its factual claims could be true. I now see that I was setting the evidentiary bar far too low.
I hope that clears up a few matters.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else notice the similarity of this logic with those of anti-evolution arguments?
Any perceived gap in the record is taken as evince against [INSERT: scripture or evolution], and a mere just so story. This ends up being an uncharitable reading. All good stories leave out details. The particulars of all stories are phenomenally improbable, all the the more so when we are discussing singular events. This sort of discourse fixates us on the forest, rather than the trees.
That is why NT Wrights case has been so compelling. Taking a far more âscientificâ approach, he compares the rise of Christianity with ten other Messiah movements from 100 years before and after, seeing several clear patterns. On several objective demonstrable and undisputed points, the rise of Christianity is different. Why? That is the crux of the âriverâ that historians are trying to cross. They need some good account of how a group of orthodox Jews, the least likely to adjust their understanding of faith, decided into turn their lives upside down and start welcoming Gentiles as equals, the least likely type of reform we should expect. We have to give an account of what changed Paul too. This is not a matter of accepting revelation. It is a matter of natural theology.
None of this, by the way, depends exclusively on the Scriptural account. The full case can be made without even appealing to Scripture, and just in reference to non-Christian sources. This is also where the historianâs experience is relevant. It appears that the key facts are more attested to than just about any event at that time. To ask for more evidence is equivalent to an ID proponent asking for a step-by-step mutational pathway. It is not reasonable, because by that standard we would not know anything about the past. There is no reason to subject these facts to a evidential standard higher that no other event could cross. To do so is an indication of prejudicial bias.
I take great exception to this @vjtorley. I encourage you to look more closely at my work. You are not the only one doing this.
I agree with this. That is not the point though, is it? Alterâs case looks like a sloppy argument against the Resurrection by picking on only the sloppy arguments for it, and then relying on a poor historical case.
Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not engage with NT Wright, did he? He did not engage with McDowellâs recent work on the Fate of the Apostles, did he?
Are there any historians anywhere that vouch for his work? Who are historians that he engaged to make sure he was making a valid argument? What do they say about his book?
4 Likes
This is really among the more problematic claims you make. What do you know of how non-Christian and/or impartial historians are responding to Alterâs work versus NT Wrights? Do they think he has added anything new to the conversation?
My fact finding on just this point is that NT Wrightâs case for the Resurrection is strong and unanswered. For good reason, many historians still do not believe. This is a crazy story. We do not expect God to allow His Son to suffer and die. We do not expect a man to rise from the dead. This is unbelievable so they do not believe. However, they are not saying Wrightâs case is âblown out of the water.â Quite the opposite. They do not have a good response.
Though I would not say it so harshly, I think @dga471âs assessment is important to grapple with:
Note the contrast with this and ID arguments. Most biologists reject ID arguments. ID is trying to argue agains the âestablishmentâ claiming bias. Honestly, they usually just lack good arguments.
In contrast, most historians accept NT Wrightâs and Gary Habermasâs arguments even if they ultimately do not affirm the Resurrection. The real issue right now in public discourse is that most people do not know where the field currently stands in regard to this scholarship. Alter is outside the mainstream here. What he is doing is a type of âpseudohistoryâ.
Of course, Iâm happy to be corrected on the material facts. This, however, is really what it looks like now.
3 Likes
Likewise with nails in crucifixion.
The logic appears to be: we know that horses are the animal of choice to ride, so we should doubt Jesus actually rode a donkey into Jerusalem. By this logic, every detail of a story decreases its likelihood, independent of the evidence of what explanation is most likely given all the evidence.
The fallacy is mistaking P( Story1 ) for P(Story1 | Evidence) vs. P(Story2 | Evidence). The P( Story1 ) will always be low for just about every true story. P(Story1 | Evidence) vs. P(Story2 | Evidence), on the other hand, can point to clear winners and losers.
3 Likes
He mentioned nails too? Let me guess, âsome people were tied to the cross, so Jesus couldnât have been nailedâ?
2 Likes
Not Alter (I hope). See: Did Romans Use Nails in Crucifixion?.
2 Likes
Hi Daniel,
I have five degrees altogether (B.Sc., B.A., B.Ec., M.A., Ph.D.) but history isnât one of them, although I do have an interest in the subject. As far as I can tell, the term âimpartial historianâ goes back at least 250 years, to the time of the historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), who described the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus as an âimpartial historian,â although many modern historians would query that assertion. As to what the term means, I cannot do better than to quote Gibbon himself (see also here):
Since the origin of Theological Factions, some historians, Ammianus Marcellinus, Fra-Paolo, Thuanus, Hume, and perhaps a few others, have deserved the singular praise of holding the balance with a steady and equal hand. Independent and unconnected, they contemplated with the same indifference, the opinions and interests of the contending parties; or, if they were seriously attached to a particular system, they were armed with a firm and moderate temper, which enabled them to suppress their affections and sacrifice their sentiments. In this small, but venerable band of historians, Eusebius cannot claim a seat.
I donât want anyone to read anything into my quoting Gibbon: I wasnât aware that he had used the term when I wrote my post.
Alter doesnât make any such sweeping claim. In his discussion of Jesusâ burial, he reviews a number of alternative scenarios regarding Jesusâ burial (or non-burial), including Pilateâs agreeing to let Joseph of Arimathea have the body of Jesus.
By the way, as Bart Ehrman points out, we have NO archaeological evidence of the Romans allowing the body of a political criminal to be buried. Criminals in this category were subjected to the maximum possible humiliation, and shown no quarter.
Why would anyone have three Bachelorâs degrees?
1 Like
It distresses me that people are making wild and unfounded assertions about Alterâs book, without having read it.
As a matter of fact, despite the fact that Alter raises no less than 113 issues in his book, the question of whether nails were used in Jesusâ crucifixion is not one of them. As far as I can tell, Alter has no particular opinion on this issue.
On pages 181-182 of his book, Alter takes issue with Johnâs claim that not one of Jesusâ bones was broken. He cites a 1983 article by Stephen Pennells of St. Johnâs College, Cambridge (Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19 (1983), pp. 99-115), which remarks: âIf nails were used it could not be confidently claimed that no bone was broken.â (1983, p. 109)
Elsewhere in his book, in Table 12, Alter examines the question of whether Jesus was actually brain-dead when his body was buried, or whether he was buried alive and then died subsequent to being buried. On pages 255-256, Alter addresses the issue of Jesus being nailed to a cross by his hands on the âproâ side. On the âconâ side, Alter mentions doubts raised by some scholars as to whether Jesus was actually nailed to the Cross: maybe he was just fastened or tied with a rope. Also, the disciples on the road to Emmaus didnât recognize Jesus despite him having nail marks in his hands, which is a bit odd. There are a couple of other points he raises, too - e.g. did the Evangelists mention the nails in order to conform Jesusâ crucifixion with the supposed prophecies in Psalm 22:17 and Zechariah 12:10? In putting forward these âproâ and âconâ arguments, Alter himself does not take sides; he simply notes them without drawing any conclusions, except that Jesus definitely died: he did not revive while in the tomb under the influence of some drug, as conspiracy theorists have claimed.
Apparently some people are putting words into Alterâs mouth. They shouldnât.
1 Like
Iâm sure thatâs the case which is why Iâm hedging everything I say. And asking you to show you how my impressions are wrong.
You havent convinced me Iâm not yet.