sotto voce

Everyone believes in the biblical miracles.

TedM

I got it. What you are saying is that NOTHING would be compelling without the same or a similar 'miracle' being demonstrated to you firsthand. To me that's the equivalent of my characterization, since the OP didn't mean to grant you the ability to create new scenarios in your current life. No offense was intended.

To summarize, you absolutely refuse to believe any historical document or set of documents no matter how convincing the evidence actually is (not sounds but IS), if those documents contain accounts of events you currently believe to be impossible. Correct?

TedM

I'm not referring to the weak gospel evidence. I'm just curious what NEW writings/archeological finds, etc.. would be enough to convince you that Jesus really did say or do the things that are in the Gospels? If the answer is "NONE", that's fine. I'm just wondering how much historical evidence is enough to be convincing, or if ANY amount is enough.

TedM

I think I should remove the 'reasonably expected' part of the OP.

What is the minimum amount of evidence from the 1st century that would be enough to convince you that Jesus said and did the things attributed to him by the gospels?

Atheos

I rarely deal in absolutes anymore at my age. It's not a matter of how "convincing" the documentary evidence is, it's more a matter of how likely it is to be true. I'll explain further in a moment but first consider a sampling of the factors that are at play here:

• Documentary evidence has been trivially easy to fabricate for a long time. Just because a document is ancient doesn't make it more reliable.
• There is abundant evidence that people make up extravagant claims and pass them off as truth. Motivations for this sort of behavior are almost as variegated as the stories themselves. Evidence strongly supports the fact that this sort of thing has happened for thousands of years.
• The existence of signed and sworn fraud such as the testimony of the Elders in the prelude to the Book of Mormon demonstrates that even the most verifiable historical documentation (source and authenticity) does not guarantee in any way that the contents of the documentation are valid.
• The existence (and prevalence) of sworn but contradictory testimony in courts of law where individuals are in jeopardy of being accused of perjury demonstrates that even in the most rigorous possible environment it is often difficult to ascertain the truth of what happened.

So when I say "It's more a matter of how likely it is to be true" what I mean is that a fair assessment of the evidence demands that rational people objectively weigh the likelihood that the events happened exactly as described verses the likelihood that the story was made up.

The Mystery of the Missing Ball

A ball is missing. A detective is trying to find it.

Detective: When was the last time you kids had the ball?

Little Johnny: Joey had it and he threw it up in the air.

Detective: So, what happened when Joey threw the ball up in the air?

Little Johnny: Well the ball just kept going up, up, up and finally disappeared into the clouds!

The detective looks around and notices a fence nearby.

Detective: Any chance the ball just fell down on the other side of that fence?

Little Johnny: No, the ball just kept going up and disappeared into the clouds.

Detective: You sure this is what happened?

Little Johnny: I swear, it's what happened!

Detective: Do any of you other kids have a different story?

Little Susie: My brother told me the ball fell over the fence.

Little Johnny: Don't listen to her. She didn't see it for herself and her brother left before you got here.

The detective peeks over the fence. On the other side is a ravine leading down to a flowing river. The ball is nowhere in sight.

Assuming the detective was determined to locate the ball would he be wiser to take a boat or a rocket ship?

As students of history each of us plays the part of a detective, trying to ascertain what actually did happen from the available evidence. It's not an exact science, but various scientific disciplines are an integral part of the equation. Even a lay understanding of science tells the detective the most likely scenario is that the ball fell over the fence, into the river and floated out of sight.

Abandoning science for magic the moment you simply "want" to believe a preposterous claim is simply not rational. Each of us have our own set of motivations and influences for believing whatever we believe. As I've grown older I've simply tried to take pains to be consistent in my methodology. I no longer believe the miracle claims of NT Christianity in part because I could find no excuse for accepting those claims and rejecting similar claims from other religious traditions.

Juststeve

Ted:

Your question is now "What is the minimum amount of evidence from the 1st century that would be enough to convince you that Jesus said and did the things attributed to him by the gospels"? The obvious answer is that it depends upon which sayings and deeds you are talking about. I am already persuaded based on the evidence that exists that it is probable that some of the deeds of Jesus are historical. The crucifixion would be an example.

The claim that Jesus was crucified however is different in kind from the claim that after being crucified he rose from the dead and visited his friends for 40 days. One posits that Jesus was among the thousands the Romans crucified, the other posits that Jesus uniquely violated the laws of nature, as we best understand them by retuning to life after being dead. The second kind of claim requires an entirely different kind of evidence that I do not think could possibly be found in pre-scientific literature.

I hope that is a fair answer.

Steve

sotto voce

Never mind the quality, feel the width.

Atheos

Juststeve makes a good point as well, and it's one I considered adding to my already overly wordy post above. My example was going to be this little gem:

I honestly can't imagine what quality of historical documentation would cause me to believe this actually happened.

TedM

I appreciate what you are saying, but you aren't attempting to answer the question, which I"ve stated multiple times, and is quite simple. Can you conceive of any possible scenario of historical evidence from the 1st century that would convince you that the sayings and doings (ALL OF THEM--except any that might be contradictory to one another ) really happened.

I just saw your response to Steve's post. I think that answers the question clearly. I take it that your answer is 'NO', there can be NO quality or quantity of evidence that would convince you that the dead rose out of their graves and walked around. None whatsoever would cause you to change your mind. I find that interesting.

TedM

Yes, that's a fair answer. It sounds to me that the inability to accept historical testimony that goes against one's own view of the world, is due to two things:
1. The lack of personal verifiability
2. The distrust of stranger testimony no matter how strongly the evidence supports its truth.

SO, I wonder, is quality of evidence important at all? Or does it really come down to this: If I can't see it with my own eyes, I have no obligation to consider its truth.