Family Man

A few years back, I wrote an essay explaining why this claim is ridiculous. I've seen it a few times lately, so I decided to rewrite it. I'd like folks here to review it and make suggestions to strengthen it if you will. I'm thinking about taking it to TheologyWeb just to see the screams and hollers it'll generate.

Family Man

As a student of history, it always amazes me when I hear someone proclaim that the resurrection is the best attested event in all of history, because it is an obviously false statement. Any read of scholars dealing with the historical aspects of the gospels will tell you that the evidence for any aspect of Jesus's career is considered poor indeed. Consider what Michael Grant, a professor who wrote extensively on ancient history, had to say about the gospels in his book about the historical Jesus:

Or as A.N. Wilson pointed out:

It is my hope in this thread to demonstrate why such a rash statement about the historicity of the resurrection is not credible, and works against the person making the claim. To do this, let's consider some of the questions historians ask when deciding how much weight to give to a report in a historical document.

1. How close to the actual events were the reports made?

The gospels, by the standard analysis, were written from 40-60 years after the event. By comparison, as E.P. Sanders pointed out, the great Roman leaders were quite famous in their lifetimes and they were frequently written about by their contemporaries. For example, in the case of Jesus's near-contemporary, Julius Caesar, we have his eight-volume commentary on the Gallic Wars and the letters and speeches of Cicero.

Please note that, by itself, the lack of contemporary writings about Jesus does not invalidate the claims made about him. After all, we have no contemporary records of Alexander the Great either. But if the claim is made that an event reported in the gospels is the "best-attested", without any recognition of its relatively late recording in comparison to other writings, one cannot help but wonder about the validity of the claim being made.

2. Are there independent sources for the events being described?

Note that independent sources are more than just more than one person making the report. It is also important that the sources represent different viewpoints. For example, Caesar and Cicero were bitter enemies. Either would have been glad for the other to disappear. Thus, if one says "I did this" and the other says "Yep, he did do that", we can feel confident that the event happened as described.

We don't have that with our Christian sources. Not only is the common view that Matthew and Luke copied much of their material from Mark, but Christians very likely were working off of common sources even if they weren't directly borrowing from each other. Michael Grant makes this point when he criticizes the use of "multiple attestation" by some scholars:

Again the lack of independence is not necessarily fatal to the claim that the event happened, but once again, it doesn't back up the claim that any event in the gospels was the "best-attested".

3. Is there archealogical evidence to support the claim?

In 51 B.C., Caesar engaged and captured the Gallic forces under Vercingetorix at Alesia. During the siege, Caesar reports in his commentaries that his forces dug pits, put sharpened sticks in them, then covered them with brush. Recently, archealogists unearthed some of these pits, confirming both what Caesar wrote in his commentaries and the battle itself.

There is no such archealogical evidence for the Resurrection, or for any event of Jesus's life. The best that apologists can do is to point to places that are mentioned in the Bible, such as the pool of Bethesda, and note that the information given is accurate. However, that does little to indicate that any event described in the Bible actually occurred. As Raymond Brown noted:

To put it clearly, to claim that archealogy "confirms" the events of the Bible is like saying that the historical fact that the Union Army burned Atlanta confirms the romance of Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara. It doesn't.

4. What do we know of the authors?

Ancient writers such as Plutarch and Suetonius were well-known during their lifetimes, and developed a reputation for writing biographies that, while not perfect, were close to the facts as we know them. The gospel writers, on the other hand, were anonymous. As E.P. Sanders says:

5. What were the motivations of the authors?

The importance of this cannot be understated. It is not uncommon for historians to discount claims based on the potential bias of the reporter. Here is Michael Grant dismissing various claims made by Caesar:

We have a similar problem with the gospel authors. Were there beliefs the result of a real resurrection, or did the stories of the resurrection come about to justify the beliefs of the writers? It is impossible to tell, and as such the stories have to be discounted.

6. How honest and objective were the authors?

This is a major failing of many ancient writers, but a particular failing of the gospel writers. As E.P. Sanders says:

What Sanders is saying here is that the early Christians were not writing down events that actually happened, but invented material they thought must be true given their beliefs. For example, if Jesus was Lord then he must have had a miraculous birth. Scholars widely consider the birth narratives to be fabrications. They are contradictory, contain historical absurdities (people did not have to go to ancestral backgrounds to pay taxes), contain events that likely would have been reported in other accounts (the massacre of the babes), and contain fantastic elements (warnings from angels, stars guiding wise men). No serious historian would take such stories seriously.

And that is just one example, with the end result being that the accuracy of the whole has to be called into question. The question becomes, if they were willing to assume a fantastic birth, why not invent a fantastic death to go along with it? The possiblity cannot be discounted.

7. Does the tale involve fantastic elements?

History is the study of human events. During the course of those events, there have been many claims of the supernatural. What you will never find is a claim that a supernatural event is a historical event.

For example, when Caesar defeated Pompeii, it was reported that a large statue at a local temple turned around, greatly impressing the locals. You won't find very many people claiming that that actually happened, at least not by supernatural means. In fact, outside of the claims of religion, I've never seen a single instance of a supernatural event being widely held as being true.

The great problem with the Resurrection is that it is the ultimate supernatural event. The fact that we have alleged witnesses to this doesn't change this fact. Several witnesses signed affadavits that they had seen the golden plates that the archangel Moroni had pointed Joseph Smith to. Outside of the Mormon Church, however, there aren't too many people who accept their claims at face value. Neither can we take the witness claims in the Bible seriously either. Not about supernatural claims.

What ought to be clear from the above discussion is that the claim that the Resurrection is the best attested event of history is simply a piece of absurd propaganda, one that does a disservice to the religion it is intended to bolster. To conclude with one more observation by Sanders:

Rick Sumner

Apologies for not posting a more thorough responsel to your article--it's well-written, and I generally agree with it, so can't add much.

I do, however, condemn Sanders for his attempts at justifying the actions of the early Christians--"but it's only a sharp way of putting a procedure they saw quite differently."

Sanders oftens apologizes for the gospel authors in this manner--the birth narratives come to mind most immediately, but there are many others. To be sure, Sanders is sometimes correct--sometimes the likely believed what they wrote to be true, due to "revelations" received by themselves or passed on by others, due to the beliefs that scripture was correct and Jesus was the Messiah--so he must have fulfilled it, etc..

But I level the charge of fraud or dishonesty nonetheless. Matthew and Luke, for example, knew damn well that there was no Bethlehem birth, but created one nonetheless. That's both "fraud" and "dishonesty."

The resurrection narratives follow a similar case in point. I'd venture that Mark had never heard of an empty tomb. Nobody before him seems to have, and the inevitable polemic that the body was stolen doesn't appear to have developed until after Mark wrote. He made it up--if there was a tomb, as Peter noted in his submission to the JHC, people would have worshipped at it. They didn't.

Likewise the resurrection experiences in Matthew and Luke. These are obviously and demonstrably symbolic events. Which is fine--the gospels are rife with such depictions. But it's not history, and serve no purpose other than to speak to the contemporary.

To be sure, many ancient historians commit such offences. But we don't apologize for them. Lying is lying, it's not as though it is suddenly less so because of the genre.

Crossan can talk about how "Emmaus never happened, Emmaus always happened" all he wants. When Emmaus is presented as an historical event, with no evidence of prior tradition, in such a manner that the entire story clearly follows the tendencies of Luke, the author has just been dishonest.

I am not persuaded that the gospel authors, for whatever reason, believed their accounts of the resurrection experiences to be true. They lied, and they knew it.

Regards,
Rick

Doctor X

FamilyMan:

Not to change your prose, but if you wish to post this-link this--to pages that have "the faithful" you may wish to tone down some of the polemic:

Here, you appeal to authority, create a straw man, appeal to authority again, and again. That does not mean your openning is "wrong" but it does create a chink in your armor. Someone can dismiss you as a "polemical Atheist" or something like that and go no further. Instead, you may wish to open with examples of these proclamations and go from there.

Good essay.

--J.D.

Sojourner553

Here is a link to some of the actual discrepancies in the NT on the gospel empty tomb/resurrection stories.

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/TOMB.TXT

or alternately, Section II, Chapter 9 from--

http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html

Kosh

Good essay, just noticed one grammatical error:

There should be a "their" there.

Family Man

First, I don't see a straw man here. The "resurrection is the best-attested event in all of ancient history" is the position of many Christians. I've seen it recently on this board. In fact, A.N. Wilson related a story where he heard a tour guide make that proclamation while on a trip to Israel. And while doing research for this essay I saw it in a Christian apologetic. I think most people recognize this apologetic and to prove that many Christians believe it is unnecessary. I can back it up, however.

Second, the point of the essay is to demonstrate why serious scholars would find this Christian polemic laughable. It is not, to my understanding, an appeal to authority to quote scholars to demonstrate that they disagree with a stated opinion. This is particularly so when I go on to demonstrate why the scholarly position is the correct one.

And let's face it: Christians respect authority. If I were writing this for fellow skeptics, I'd have no need for support. (Heck, I'd have no need to post it.) However, if I don't use some support with Christians, they'll dismiss me as a "crackpot atheist" and assume it is just my personal opinion.

And while I'm concerned with appearing overly polemic, I'm also concerned with not making the point strongly enough. After all, the original proclamation is itself a polemic and a ridiculous one at that. No matter how I make the point, some dedicated Christians will dismiss me as a "polemical atheist". I suspect that's inevitable, and it is not a particular concern. What I am concerned about is whether I've put together a strong enough argument that someone approaching it with an open mind would have to say that my position is correct.

I will, however, think about re-writing the opening.

Family Man

I thought about using these, but in many ways they are not relevant. Discrepancies in and of themselves do not render a described event ahistorical. Many historical events are described in contradictory terms in the historical sources. These prove the Bible isn't inerrant, but not that the events didn't happen.

Family Man

Thanks. I always proof before posting, but I must have missed this one. I've changed it in my master copy.

Family Man

I understand what you mean. In fact, a common Christian defense is to accuse the skeptic of claiming that the gospel writers were liars. In all likelihood, however, the writers probably did believe they were writing the "truth", in much the same way that criminals convince themselves that their behavior is justified by the situation. In other words, I don't think sincerity of belief is much of a defense. But I'm not unconcerned with DoctorX's position about polemics, and I prefer that the more radical polemic comes from the Christian side.