A major bone of contention between us (TSZ) and our friends at Uncommon Descent is origins, how things came to be.
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary, UD is a Christian apologetics website looking to boost and support the Christian story of origins.
Barry has claimed: “The documents constituting the New Testament are vouchsafed with the blood of the martyrs. Nothing else comes remotely close.”
Islam and the Heaven’s Gate cult also have had people willing to die for them. So, they come close. Also, not all of them can be true given their contradictory truth claims. We can therefore rule out wanting to die for something being a guarantee of truth.
KirosFocus looks to bolster the argument with “with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”, but as far as I can tell this is poor thinking, he is citing the bible to support the biblical account (1 Cor 15:1) – So the number is irrelevant, we are still left with only the primary source.
KF also tells us, “we have four eyewitness lifespan biographies, one of which is volume 1 of the earliest history of the Christian movement, credibly initially complete c 62 AD. a two-volume work that has been abundantly vindicated as to habitual, detailed accuracy and capturing nuances of setting in ways not plausible for people projecting back from later times. This consciously historical work uses a second biography as a major source, reinforcing the conclusion”
This is closer to the truth; there are four accounts that were written at the earliest decades after the purported events all of which are part of the bible, not independent support for it. I image that people at that time would understand the nuances of biblical times far better than we do, so I’m not sure there’s any argument about ‘good context’ to be made.
See also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem)
So my question is, outside of the bible, what historical evidence do we have for the story of Jesus? Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-why-liars-lie/#comment-580232) I’d like to see those documents, the non-biblical ones.
The scientific aim is obviously to have a consilient picture of events, multiple independent and reinforcing narratives, like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The Synoptic Gospels are generally taken as reliable enough for the death and burial of Jesus (that these likely happened in the first half of the first century, and crucifixion likely to be the means, anyhow), the resurrection being a tad more problematic. I’m willing to accept that something unusual occurred with the body, but I can’t say that even the encounters with the resurrected Jesus sound especially plausible, seeming to have the elements of (hallucinatory) visions.
The accounts of Joseph of Cupertino are actually a fair bit more credible, since different people claim to have witnessed his levitations, leaving independent accounts (or so I’ve been led to believe). Yet those claims seem beyond likely, as well, at least as true levitation sans trickery or some such thing. Some things evidently don’t happen, and require something other than a few eyewitnesses (not the worst evidence, but certainly problematic enough, even for “ordinary events”) claiming to have seen something out of the ordinary. Or are the alien abductions (probes!) simply to be believed? Or what came before that, accounts of visitations by demons and other spirits (probes of a kind, often enough)?
If eyewitness claims of non-miraculous crimes can be disregarded when forensic evidence goes against it, I think that eyewitness claims of miracles can be disregarded when physics goes against it. For Jesus’ resurrection, we actually don’t have eyewitness acounts at all, just some interesting stories probably told by sincere folk who could have been mistaken.
Glen Davidson
quote
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
(1Co 15:7-8)
end quote
peace
And don’t forget John the Revelator.
Why leave out anyone who claims to have met Jesus well after the Ascension?
Joseph Smith did too, you know, if you believe him.
Glen Davidson
Thanks for that. The author saw the events in person?
Because Paul says he was the “last of all” witness of the resurrection. Those after Paul would not be eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself .
peace
That is what he (Paul) said
peace
And Paul wrote those words?
Yes,
That is the overwhelming scholarly consensus
peace
based on?
from here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians
quote:
There is consensus among historians and Christian theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ca.53-54 AD). The letter is quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and is included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion. The personal and even embarrassing texts about immorality in the church increase consensus
end quote:
you might also find this to be interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15
peace
Rich writes:
There was a policy shift around November 2008. Doesn’t seems to have looked back (or forward 😉 ) since.
“Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” “
But let’s not forget that Barry, in true Barry fashion, equivocated when called on this and said that because the bible is one of the most published document, that his statement was correct.
Silly Barry
The trouble about resurrection is you need such massive evidence for something so utterable implausible. Forget the difficulties of believing accounts of what happened 2000 years ago. Imagine that today a man is declared dead by the best doctors, placed in a seal tomb, then three days later the tomb is opened, the body has vanished, and someone who appears to be the same man appears alive a few miles away and says he was dead and resurrected. Assume the whole sequence is witnessed by thousands of people on the spot and billions on TV. Would you believe he was actually resurrected?
David Copperfield made the statue of liberty disappear in front of a large live audience. Levitation is an ancient bit of stagecraft.
I am primarily interested in support for the bible from outside of the bible.
Obviously being internally consistent is also a plus, but that is I think a different topic.
Exactly.I would say that he never actually died.That’s what Butler and a number of others have concluded about Jesus based on a study of the available evidence.That strikes me as the most reasonable conclusion.
As I’ve mentioned before, Butler’s Fair Haven is not only closely argued, but funny.And it’s now available free on-line.I had to pay a ton of money for a hard copy years ago.
There’s also a novelistic version of the “carried off in a swoon” theory in George Moore’s Brook Kerith.Sadly, however, that isn’t one of Moore’s better books.In fact, G.B.Shaw, who I believe agreed with Butler and Moore on the substance of the issue, considered it one of the most boring novels ever written.I wouldn’t go that far myself, but it ain’t great–especially by Moorean standards.
double double (toil and trouble)
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary TSZ is an atheist apologetics website looking to boost and support the anti-Christian story of origins.
Fixed it for you.
1.) What evidence do you have that the four gospels were the only written accounts?
2.) What evidence do you have that the four gospels were written at the earliest decades after the purported events?
3.) What evidence do you have that the four gospels became part of the Bible as soon as they were written?
4.) What difference does it make that the four gospels are part of the modern bible and how does that exclude them from being independent historical sources?
5.) Why not go read up instead of posting on an Anti-Christ atheist blog site as if your questions could not be answered?
Are you, really? It’s ok, you can be honest with me.
What did “the bible” consist of when the Gospels were written?
When a gospel was written, did it somehow just magically become part of “the bible”?
If that is true, then you should have no problem admitting that the Gospels were not part of any bible when they were written and that they are in fact the very thing you are asking for.
The choice of writings to be included in the Bible was political. What’s scripture depends on who you ask.
How convenient. And none of those who decided is around to answer questions now. And since it’s political, we can just vote to change it. Right? Is that how things really work here at TSZ?
Was there a bible before the Gospels were written? How was the choice of writings to be included in that bible political?
Who did first century Jews ask?
There’s quite a bit of history available regarding how the canon was adopted. It’s not the same for all Christians.
Indeed. Is it the same for all Jews?
richardthughes seems to think the bible magically popped into existence at the same time that the Gospels were written. He seems to think the bible and the Gospels are inseparable. He seems to reason that since the Gospels have always been included in the bible they cannot possibly have ever existed as independent corroboration.
I think he’s begging he question.
Attack Gerbil Mung, show me accounts I may have missed.
I think the request for extra-bibical corroboration is a fair one. The lack of any documentation that isn’t pro-Christian is a significant lacuna. Even contemporary attempts to debunk would at least give some support to the hypothesis that there was a story that merited debunking.
Personally I don’t find eye-witness testimony persuasive of itself. We are all capable of thinking we’ve seen things that we haven’t. There’s a notable lack of triangulation to the story.
Mung, what is it the Gospels are corroborating?
He’s begging th question! You seem to be saying the reason there is no non-biblical evidence is because anything that remotely fits the description of evidence has already been incorporated into the Bible, by men millenia ago.
At least it’s good to know you’re not one of those fundamentalist types who claim the Bible is the Inerrant Word Of God
On this I agree. That is why we need to look at things like fulfilled prophecy.
peace
I’d say a crime scene investigation.
“with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”
For all we know, there’s another 50.000 people who lost their faith in the face of adversity. That would put those 500 people at the frequency of people who suffering all kinds of mental disabilities and are unable to reason properly. A nice self-selected sample we are left with then.
Not that I believe this happened, I’m merely pointing out this possibility to show another flaw in the kind of after-the-fact rationalization KF offers here. I’m not even convinced there were any actual eye-witnesses to any of the miraculous or supernatural events claimed to have taken place in the bible.
A shame none of the eyewitnesses wrote anything down. Does that mean that 500 typical Jews of the era could not read and write?
There are eleven eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith’s golden tablets. People who put it in writing.
In any decent court of law, eleven signed affidavits beats hearsay claims.
If you are serious, there is a better place for Christian apologetics than UD, I wouldn’t refer any Christian to UD for apologetics they way it does things these days.
Here is the site I recommend regarding your question:
The site author is at least a more compelling personality than KF:
I’m very happy to be shown other accounts. I have infact asked for this. If you can read.
This was espoused by your own leading creator of air pressure differentials, in his post that I quoted.
I don’t have any, nor do I care. They could have been oral tradition. I don’t care.
Clearly an independent (and perhaps even unsympathetic) account would carry more weight for corroborative and consilient purposes.
Okay Mung, I’ll go and look at all those great resources you gave me. Oh wait, there weren’t any. But you talked about how there might be some. How does that emperor’s clothes / courtiers response thing work again?
Thank you Sal. Is there any external source in particular you find particularly persuasive?
Yes, and I was booted from UD for making reference to it, the case for Young Life Creation (which is not quite as bold a claim as Young Earth Creation).
This may sound a bit odd, but I’m somewhat a Creationist first then a Christian second. I probably would not be a Christian if I did not think creation was correct.
The genealogy of Jesus, I feel is corroborated by the mitochondrial Eve Study by Siegfried Scherer that suggests humanity is young — 6,500 years.
Scherer is a real scientist :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Scherer
The actually peer-reviewed paper by Scherer is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534797012044
The water down version is explaining Scherer’s paper is here:
http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/mitochondrial-eve-6500-years-old
As far as external sources, the way to describe it maybe better is whether there are corroborating evidences that lend credence to the authenticity of documents like the Gospels. Cold Case Christianity goes into those.
There is a difference between dying for a falsehood that you know is a falsehood vs. dying for a falsehood that you simply got beguiled into believing. Paul died because he claimed historical events happened, namely the Resurrection of Christ which he got evidence of on the Road to Damascus. Maybe he was beguiled, but then there is the problem of other people getting the same vision of Jesus being resurrected since it appears John is a historical figure since 2 of the church fathers were his students.
So do we have credible evidence Paul was a real person. We have evidence of the Christian persecutions by Nero. There is a letter widely accepted as authentic, Paul’s letter to the Romans. Now if one is in that Roman church which Nero persecuted in AD 64, why would that church be clinging to a letter written by Paul which names so many of the member of that church by name in his letter, unless Paul was a real person? It’s a thread, but enough for me to take notice
Additionally, the work of William Ramsey, I found compelling since he afforded respectability to the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay
The Gospel of John had some forensic support after the discovery of the 5 porticos of the pool of Bethsaida in 1956 and the pool of Siloam in 2005. Not the sort of thing one would expect of a document forged 300 years after the fact, like say in the time of Constantine.
So the case for Christ, like a cold case crime, rests on thread of evidence. It is not blatantly obvious, imho.
Now one may ask, why does God go through great troubles to make discovery and confirmation of the Gospels so hard. I have my views, I will probably be releasing my first youtube on the topic someday.
Finally, I’m not an absolutist about asserting something being absolutely true or false. My approach to these questions is based on rational wagering. I’m willing to bet on something being true if there is a good pay off for being right and limited loss for being wrong.
I don’t have a vested stake on other historical questions like the size of Alexander the Great’s army in various famous battles. I don’t wager on such questions. I do wager on the case for Christ.
To be fair, as I already stated records for important events of around that time are sparse: http://theskepticalzone.fr/reliance-on-testimony-to-miracles/comment-page-5/#comment-78094
Richardthughes,
Mung and Casey Luskin have the same Intelligent Design Creationist rank?
Yes. Whoops. Congratulations on your promotion, Mung!
and a fellow of the Discovery Institute, which does not bode well for his impartiality.
links to a paywall; I’m not going to waste time digging for it further unless you have an actual copy of the paper to share.
anti-atheist woo-master with a frankly ridiculous website. Is TrueFreethinker ™ capable of being unbiased about Scherer’s article supporting his preferred brand of creationism? Is he even capable of understanding the science to begin with?
Is this really the best you can come up with, Sal, to overthrow the scientific consensus?
What I want to know is why Scherer’s dates are orders of magnitude out of conformance with hundreds of repeated tests of human genetic diversity. What did Scherer get wrong? Which, if any, legitimate scientists have responded to Scherer’s mtDNA work? What’s the real explanation?
Why would anyone prefer to believe the one outlier – and a creationist, to boot – rather than literally millions of other pieces of consilient evidence?
Yeah, yeah, sometimes the one outlier is genuinely on to a world-shaking new discovery. Usually, he’s just plain mistaken: didn’t formulate his hypothesis rigorously, didn’t calibrate his equipment, didn’t notice a honkin’ great source of error, didn’t listen to good peer advice and ends up looking like a clown.
Why should we believe Scherer is anything but another clown if he’s not an outright fraud?
Even IF those dates were accurate, it would tell you nothing about how long modern humans have been around for.
Well, it would suggest a lot longer than 6,500 years.
Who has that? Effing Christmas, that link is from 1997.
Can we please elevate this discussion to the level of normal honesty?
Elizabeth,
Plus, the Christ story isn’t contingent on a young or old earth.
As far as the genomes, I’m not sure yet if the 1000 genomes project will publicly make available the mtDNAs of interest. These questions can be revisited.
I have (like everyone else) access to the publicly available HG38 build (the supposed latest) of the human assembly, but it’s the averaged consensus build, not the sort of data that will help settle the mtDNA issue.
We don’t have to settle the issue today, but Rich asked what I found persuasive. Obviously it’s not persuasive for others here, but it is persuasive for me at least tentatively.
Thanks anyway for the counter responses.
stcordova,
You’ve conducted yourself well, Sal. I’m on your case when I feel otherwise, so I should be symmetric. I don’t find your arguments convincing personally, though.
It’s not pervasive to other people (like me) because it’s a bizarre outlier. I don’t have to be an expert in any particular field to know that a bizarre outlier is more likely to be false, sloppy, artifact of bad data or bad methodology, than to be a paradigm-changing vital new discovery.
And yet, you (okay, tentatively, good for you not being dogmatic, but …) find an outlier persuasive rather than all the millions of bits of available consilient evidence which converge on a date for the origin of modern humans which is orders of magnitude greater than what you find “persuasive”.
Why would you even find that bad article a tiny bit interesting, much less “persuasive”?
Thanks
No problem.
I did find a couple items that might at least corroborate the Gospels as talking about real events.
This historian,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
wrote this:
and
This corroborates this account in the Gospels
So the Gospels at least incorporate events that were accepted as true for that era.
By Josephus account them, Jesus was at least a real human being, not a myth as Richard Carrier tries to argue.
Here is at least a balanced view about Josephus on Jesus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
I think this is a balanced view on Acts of the Apostles which is really considered a part of the Gospel of Luke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles
I thought this was balanced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels
Sorry, I can’t let that one go. The methodology for the 6,500 year figure was superior because mutation rate was measured by taking mothers, daughters, grand daughters mtDNA and calibrating mutation rates directly vs. using the assumed Chimp Human split methods. It would be the most accurate method.
Scherer, though a DI fellow, was merely restating the work of the laboratory that did the mtDNA study.
Because of things like the ENCODE consortium, there will be GWAS (Genome Wide Association Studies) in the future, so it is reasonable there could be a flood of data someday to re-examine the issue.
And the medical community will want to get real mutation rates based on pedigree (mom, daughter, granddaughter) studies rather than erroneous evolutionary rates, so I expect the issue will come up again and I expect the creationists to parasitize the data…
That said, I do think, despite the counter arguments, this is relevant to establishing some corroboration of the Gospels since the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matt 1 read like an official family tree (one for Joseph, one for Mary).
I think frankly no one would find the Gospels controversial historically if the events weren’t claimed as miraculous. For example, if we just accept the record of John the Baptist or James getting executed, or Paul being imprisoned, it would probably get an almost free pass as authentic historical accounts.
Other than the sources which attest to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus there are no other sources which attest to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
I’m convinced. But this is what passes for skepticism these days?
IOW, if you are going to take off the table, from the beginning, the very sources which attest to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, what do you really expect to find?
What’s more, what conclusions can you draw?