Torley Presents Alter's Case Against the Resurrection

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 Alter’s arguments, as I have heard many of them before. It seems strange that it appears he does not engage NT Wright’s 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 Wright’s work, and I do not see any of his key points addressed in this post. I doubt Atler has responded to them (though I haven’t read the book), because as of now they are considered unanswered.

This is what Tim McGrew writes me about Alter’s work, and it seems to match my impressions:

“I 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 Jesus’ 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.”

I admit up front that I haven’t 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. I’m looking forward to going through it more carefully. Until then, have you looked NT Wright’s 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 “psuedohistory” among atheists. We can engage with specific points he raises, but there is far to much to engage in totality.

4 Likes