OAO

http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/all/...cholarship.pdf - Original article.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philo...cholarship.pdf - Lecture notes for lazy bones.

The basic point is this: HBC presupposes methodological naturalism. Thus, it comes to naturalistic conclusions about Jesus. But this shouldn't trouble Christians, because Christians aren't naturalists; none of them are Christians because of historical evidence in the first place.

Now, it would be different if there were good evidence that some central claim of Christianity were false - say, good evidence that were was no empty tomb. But there is no such evidence, as far as I know. Gary Habermas did a bibliographical survey and found that 75% of NT scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea (sic), that this tomb was found empty, and that various disciples of Jesus had experiences of him as risen. That doesn't prove the Christian story, but it does mean the evidence isn't against the Christian story.

But there is a way in which HBC is relevant: it helps one to interpret the meaning of the NT, which is important for theology. Thus I think the New Perspective on Paul is a real challenge for traditional Protestantism, for instance.

show_no_mercy

Methodological naturalism is a highly successful investigative tool. I don't know of any new knowledge gained about the world we live in when people have presupposed supernaturalism. As a matter of fact, presupposing supernaturalism has led to nothing but confusion; I assume that you don't read the Koran and accept every single miraculous thing that is described in that book.

The first person to write about any sort of "empty tomb" is Mark, and he seems to have done it for literary/allegorical reasons. We have no evidence that any Christians knew anything about any empty tomb prior to Mark. And as soon as we start getting "improvements" on Mark (i.e. Matt, Luke, etc.) that's when they start addressing what would be obvious skepticism about the empty tomb. Hence Matt adding apologetics about guards being at the tomb, Jews paying off the guards to lie, disciples said to have stolen the body etc.

Jews being buried with linen shrouds in tombs that had circular rocks in front of them are a staple of post 2nd temple Judaism, which makes sense of why no Christian knew anything about any empty tomb prior to whenever Mark was written.

Toto

That is "TWO (OR MORE) KINDS OF SCRIPTURE SCHOLARSHIP" by Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher, in which he invents the term "Historical Biblical Criticism" or HBC - which AFAIK is not in common use.

Or for people who don't want to wade through non-digitized, poorly made copies of a philosopher writing a lot of nonsense.

Is this true? I have heard people claim to be Chistians because of the historical events in first century Palestine.

And until they actually dig up the unressurrected body of Jesus, you will continue to ignore the scientifically and historically impossible elements of the gospels.

Feel free to discuss this.

archaeologist

If Jesus' birth, life death and ressurrection were not historical events, there woul dbe no christianity today.

If the disciples preaching, traveling, teaching were not historical events then there would be no christianity today.

I think you need to re-phrase that statement.

It would be nice if you spelt the words out first before abbreviating, after all that is the english rule( i am making this request because many people make requests of me)

HBC fails for it does not takeinto account that the ROman Soldiers were eye-witnesses to the ressurrection.

Toto

What?

There is no record, even in Christian literature, of Roman soldiers as eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Do you think that they were because Matthew claimed that they guarded the tomb?

:huh:

OAO

HBC = historical biblical criticism.

Show_No_Mercy: I'm pretty sure there's allusions to it in the Pauline corpus.

Certainly no one I know claims to base their belief off of the evidence full-stop. They may base their belief off the existence of evidence which is highly compatible with Christian faith, thereby meaning they are confident that there is no counter-evidence.

However, I do think that the evidence is such that, if one has a prior belief in God, one might be convinced that there was a miraculous Resurrection. I don't think there's anything adequate to convince an atheist.

Minimalist

That is exactly what he thinks.

Trust me, I've been over this ground with Arch before, elsewhere.

Toto

There are no allusions to an empty tomb in Paul's letters. There are statements about Jesus being buried and rising after the third day, which some people interpret to include by implication the gospel story about Jesus being buried in a tomb, and the tomb being empty after he rose. But Paul's idea of resurrection seems to involve a transformation of the body into a different substance, so it's not clear whether he thought there would be an old body left behind in the grave.

But as far as we know, the author of Mark originated the story about the burial in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and the tomb being found empty after the Sabbath. Matthew added some Roman guards to prove that no one could have stolen the body. Luke added some elaborate post-resurrection interactions between the risen Jesus and the disciples.

Even back then, Christians couldn't get the story straight.

schriverja

It is interesting that in the earliest gospel account to be written (Mark), there was no resurrection appearance, fast forward a few years and now there is one resurrection appearance (Matthew) in Galilee, fast forward a few more years (Luke) and now there 2 (possibly 3, it's confusing) resurrection appearances but they've been moved to Jerusalem (60+ miles from Galilee), then finally John has several appearances, although now they are both in Jerusalem and Galilee. Nobody seems to follow Jesus around to see where he's staying or see him in any way between sightings or between cities. If I had a dear friend return from the dead, I would be at his side non-stop...

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It appears that Plantinga is considered a bit of a joke among most philosophers:

From the Philosophical Lexicon, Daniel Dennett, editor

Plantinga is a graduate of Calvin College. Here is its self-description:
Calvin is a Christian college that is securely anchored in its beliefs—a place where you can spread your wings and discover who you are and what God has planned for you.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay