I actually find all of this sort of discussion a bit strange. It’s as though one is being asked to buy a time-share, and is not allowed to consider any information other than what’s in the sales brochure. I find the sales brochure for Christianity interesting, but of course that’s not how to evaluate the product. You’ve got to look beyond the marketing to the substantive claims, and see whether they are true. So while the Bible can tell you what Christianity CLAIMS, it certainly is not the place to look to figure out whether those claims are true.
2 Likes
It is a positive claim confirming a resurrected Jesus from a letter attributed to Peter if not directly narrated by him to a scribe.
I don’t think anybody disputes that the authors of the epistles said that Jesus had been resurrected. The idea that this is an eyewitness account falls apart, however, when one realizes that we really have no idea who wrote the epistle and it doesn’t contain such an account anyhow, only a general mention.
But how much good would this do you, anyhow? Nobody would believe such a claim if it were made today. History can’t help you – you need something much stronger if you’re going to credibly argue something like the resurrection.
2 Likes
We have people who think that this article is attributed to Peter and written by a scribe. The letter as a minimum was written by someone with strong overall biblical knowledge who claimed that the resurrection of Jesus occurred.
I’ve got a shocker for you: that’s what early Christians claimed. But there is no eyewitness account of it in the epistle and we have no real idea who wrote it.
2 Likes
Maybe. You are talking about an epistle that identifies Peter up front. I will leave the rhetorical difference between account and claim to others to quibble over.
Right – which is, in fact, one of the earmarks of a pseudonymous writing.
By all means. Just realize that the epistle supplies no details, mentions the resurrection in only the most general way, and does not indicate that the author witnessed it. If you want to call it an eyewitness account when someone just summarily states that something happened, without even saying he witnessed it, well, it takes all sorts.
2 Likes
Fair enough. I do not claim this is an eyewitness account. It is along with many others writings a piece of evidence the event occurred. Possibly from an eye witness.
OK, so another example of something that is not an eyewitness account in response the the request that you provide an example of an eyewitness account.
Can we all finally agree that no such thing exists?
2 Likes
Given the possibility of Mathew and John as authors and given their description of the empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus I don’t think that “no such thing exists” is a viable claim. The other issue is I don’t think the eye witness account is important to the overall claim of Jesus resurrection.
Still, you can’t claim it’s better attested than other ancient events, such as the eruption of Vesuvius, can you?
1 Like
I think you have brought to the table an interesting challenge with Vesuvius. Especially that it can be verified with archeological evidence. Establishing “better” is an interesting challenge.
Not a very good possibility, though – it’s very unlikely that Matthew would have cribbed all that material from Mark if he’d been an eyewitness. And I rarely see anyone even bother to try to defend the idea that John was written by an eyewitness. Really, what we have is only the faint possibility that somewhere in the folkloric threads leading up to the gospels, some of the sources may have seen something. Who were those sources? How was their material altered by the folkloric processes before it found its way into writing? Nobody really knows, or ever likely will.
I agree with that, but not in the way you mean it. No historical evidence really is important here – the problem is that historical evidence is incompetent to support a paranormal claim, because without the ability to judge the plausibility of different interpretations of the evidence, one cannot really DO history. Tossing out the inherent implausibility that, though we live in a world where paranormal claims are invariably false, the ones related in these dubious accounts are true – well, that puts you the position of limitless credulity. There is no paranormal story that doesn’t knock on the door and demand entry, once you discard the ability to judge their plausibility.
No, if you want to prove the existence of a god, the resurrection just isn’t the way to do it. But such a god would, we may assume, exist in the here and now, so why reach to a 2,000 year old event preserved in folklore? Why not look to something just a tad more proximate and scrutable? I think the answer is that we know that if we look in that way, we already know there is nothing that will be found.
2 Likes
Not all that interesting. An eyewitness account beats hearsay.
And likely eyewitness accounts PLUS archeological evidence easily beats a claim supported by what is, at best, dubious and unlikely eyewitness accounts along with some hearsay of also unknown providence, all of which describes events that are contradicted by natural laws and phenomena.
Not really interesting at all. The correct question is mundanely obvious.
1 Like
You’re making a probability claim without establishing the truth of your assumptions. You have two unestablished assumptions. 1. That Mark was the first Gospel. 2.All the similarity is due to copying the text. We are a hair before the internet with these events. These texts were hand written on very crude material and simply coping the text was a very large undertaking.
Here we add labeling to your rhetorical technique. Folklore implies non factual information.
Again you are assuming it was altered and rhetorically trying to establish it as a fact.
The Bart Ehrman strategy of saying a paranormal event cannot be history. Its evidence with many independent sources. The evidence meeting the standards of historical evidence is simply a point of debate.
No one can prove the existence of God without assumptions. The best we can do is say Gods existence is the best explanation for all the available evidence. The Bible contains lots of cohesive evidence that is very compelling in my opinion. The multiple accounts of the resurrection are pieces of that evidence
I will ask you why you use the word folklore vs oral tradition of early Christianity? This type of labeling is evidence of a weak counter argument. I have to admit you have a very difficult task in trying to demonstrate that a very large quantity of documented evidence is false.
Please list some of the paranormal events that are accepted as factual by consensus of historians. Thanks.
1 Like
If I point out to you that this is the generally accepted hypothesis for the order and relationships of the synoptic gospels, I am sure you will ask me to do an opinion poll of theologians.
Not at all. Folklore may be true. The problem is that the information it brings us is filtered through multiple retellings and through cultural processes.
We know, in fact, that biblical texts have taken many alterations. The most striking of these is the insertion of the last chapter of Mark, which does not appear in the earliest witnesses.
I am not saying a paranormal event cannot have occurred. I am only saying that history is incompetent to establish it, and you have said nothing actually to the contrary.
To me those are the same thing. I do not think “folklore” is in any way a disparagement.
I am not trying to demonstrate that. Clearly none of these events can be accepted, if we apply ordinary historical criteria. I cannot demonstrate that the events related are false. I can only point out that whenever we DO have the ability to investigate a paranormal event, it turns out to be false, and that it would be reckless, when we cannot meaningfully investigate the paranormal claims of the Bible, to assume they are true or to base such a conclusion upon historical evidence which is incompetent to establish it.
2 Likes
At this point I think I understand your position and appreciate the discussion. If we continue we will be changing the subject to whether the resurrection or other miracles are valid historical claims. They are valid Theological claims and bridging that gap would be interesting if someone wants to take that discussion on.
My sense was that that was exactly what we were talking about. The comparison, after all, was to Vesuvius, not to the labors of Hercules.
Whether something can be a good theological claim while being poor history depends, I suppose, upon whether one is prepared to radically depart from good evidentiary practice in considering theological claims. But if we do depart from good practice in the handling and weighing of evidence, then we can no longer have any reason to expect our conclusions to be useful.
2 Likes