Christians and atheists are often at “war”, especially on the internet. Most people are not all that interested, but things sometimes get a little contentious online. Claims and counter claims are made, often with insufficient or no justification.
Is truth a casualty? Unfortunately it seems that, often, it is.
Christian apologetics
I am a christian, but that doesn’t mean I find all christian apologetics convincing – or even truthful. Here are a few doubtful arguments:
There is no scientific evidence for evolution
This is simply not true. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the main facts of evolution, and many christian scientists recognise this (see the BioLogos Resources and Genetic evidence for evolution pages, and how one christian came to accept evolution).
The most that should be said is that (1) having mainly occurred in the past, many processes in evolution cannot be proved by repeated experiments as in some other areas of science, and (2) there are evolutionary processes than haven’t yet been mapped out. Perhaps they never will be. Perhaps some of them may be shown to be impossible, as Intelligent Design advocates claim. But this hasn’t been shown scientifically yet.
But there is still plenty of evidence. Those who don’t accept evolution must do it by faith, not because of evidence.
Archaeology proves the reliability of the Old Testament
There are certainly significant elements of Old Testament history and culture that are confirmed by archaeology, but the broad consensus of archaeologists is that some aspects, especially the exodus and the invasion of Canaan, are not well supported. There are several main views – minimalists argue that everything up to about 600 BCE is largely legendary, while maximalists argue that much more is historical. And of course there are many views in between. The debate is far from over. And it may be that significant new evidence will come to light.
But as it stands, archaeology is very ambivalent about Old Testament history, and christian apologists should be fair to the evidence. By all means highlight the places where it supports the Bible, but also be willing to admit there are problems.
Old Testament prophecy
Many christians believe that Old Testament prophecy ‘proves’ the divine inspiration of the Bible. But while there are some remarkable prophecies, especially Isaiah’s prophecies about the coming king and suffering servant, which christians see as being fulfilled in Jesus, other prophecies are not so clear.
The New Testament writers used the Old Testament very creatively at times and applied to Jesus statements that were not prophecies at all in the original context. Thus using Messianic prophecies to prove Jesus requires very selective use of the Old Testament, though I think it is quite reasonable to use them to understand Jesus better.
Other non-Messianic prophecies have not so far been fully fulfilled – e.g. Ezekiel’s oracle against Tyre in Ezekiel 26 & 29 were about 75% fulfilled, quite remarkable insight by Ezekiel, but not 100% fulfilled as sometimes claimed by christian apologists.
An honest and comprehensive assessment of Old Testament prophecies would be very difficult, but would probably reveal some clear ‘successes’ but also some that haven’t been fulfilled so far. Apologetics should be honest about this.
Atheist apologists
Atheists mostly claim to be evidence-based rather than ‘faith-based’, but unfortunately it isn’t aways so.
A universe from nothing?
The cosmological argument for the existence of God is very strong, especially if atheists cannot come up with an alternative explanation. So the pressure is on to find a ‘natural’ explanation for the universe appearing out of nowhere.
Enter cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, with his explanation of how the universe could have been created out of nothing. Unfortunately, his ‘nothing’ is in fact a quantum vacuum containing energy and potential capable of making our enormous universe. Physicists of all beliefs agree he is conning us, and hasn’t solved the conundrum at all, but Krauss keeps going undeterred, and many atheists keep on believing it.
Did Jesus exist?
Almost all New Testament scholars, of all persuasions (christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists and uncommitted), conclude that Jesus existed and the gospels give us a picture of his life. They base this conclusion on their experience in ancient history, the documentary evidence and their understanding of language and culture.
Despite this, a small but vociferous ‘Jesus myth’ movement writes off or explains away all the evidence. Effectively, they ask the rest of us to disbelieve the evidence and expert assessment of thousands of scholars they disagree with, and believe the (mostly unqualified) mythicists. Some argue that the scholars are all biased and in the service of the church, despite many of them being atheists. There is also a small offshoot of protagonists who argue that Nazareth never existed at the time of Jesus, despite the growing archaeological evidence that it did.
It is ironic that many of these also criticise creationist christians for refusing to believe the scientific experts.
Jesus and pagan gods
A century ago the History of religions school scholars believed that there were many parallels between the stories of Jesus and the stories of pagan gods (especially ‘dying and rising gods’). From this they theorised that perhaps the Jesus stories were similarly legendary as the stories of those gods, but came to be believed as historical.
However scholarship has tested these ideas and found them almost totally without foundation. Many of the parallels were imaginary, and in some others, it was the pagan religions which copied from christianity.
Nevertheless, this is still a favourite subject for some non-christians, and they steadfastly refuse to accept what the scholars have found, preferring to follow highly speculative, but generally baseless, ideas of non-scholars. This despite their professed belief in rationalism and evidence-based conclusions.
Church vs science?
This one comes from more than a century ago, when some writers presented a view of history in which the church suppressed science and martyred scientists right through the middle ages. More recently, historians have concluded that the “conflict thesis” is not a true understanding of history, and the church, for all its faults, probably supported science more than it opposed it. But the historical facts don’t persuade many to abandon what they have been led to believe, based on outdated scholarship.
Having the conversation
I seem to have had this conversation several times recently. In a blog or blog comment, an unbeliever accuses christians of not being interested in evidence. I challenge them and ask for examples. Typically, I seem to get one of several reactions:
- Sometimes the sceptic simply withdraws from the discussion.
- Other times they say they never get answers from christian apologists, only questions, and thus don’t offer any examples.
- But perhaps more common is to have one of the above matters raised, to which I give the responses I have outlined above. Yet I can remember only once that an atheist has accepted the verdict of scholars and revised their view. Sometimes they argue the scholars are all biased, sometimes they say they are sticking to their view regardless, sometimes they quote non-scholars to support their view.
I expect there are some christians who are just as obscurantist in their responses, but I don’t come across them so much.
Yes Virginia, truth is often a casualty
No-one gets it right all the time, we can all be forgetful, biased or bloody-minded, including me. But you would hope that eventually people committed to truth would actually be open to truths that force them to change their opinions. But I don’t suppose we should all hold our breaths.
Picture: I cannot find where I obtained this photo.
I’ll start off with a upbeat note, nowadays I occasionally come across secular online discussion by punters where the more nuanced perspective is the more common.
There are several main views – minimalists argue that everything up to about 600 BCE is largely legendary, while maximalists argue that much more is historical. The debate is far from over. And it may be that significant new evidence will come to light.
Both maximalism and minimalism are minority (fringe) views. Supporters of the former (while often “maximalism” is used as a slur, it describes some people) will support tiny details of the conquest against the evidence, adherents of the latter (“minimalism” also started out as a slur) try to weasel around the evidence of the Tel Dan stele and try to date it as late as possible (if they accept it as genuine). The far larger spectrum of beliefs in between are more interesting.
Apologetics: yes, I find some dishonesty there. I’m glad that you admit it.
Sorry, but I find the cosmological argument completely dishonest. It purports to use logic to reach a factual conclusion, but without any factual input. That’s quite impossible.
To compare – the fine tuning argument is wrong, in my opinion, but it is not dishonest. It is based on an appeal to intuition and perhaps to the emotions, rather than on bogus logic.
Universe from nothing: I think some in the Christian community are over-reacting to this. I see it as a speculative hypothesis, rather than as a truth claim. Perhaps some atheists use it as as truth claim, and I would see that as dishonest. But most scientists will see it as a speculative hypothesis.
My answer to “why is there a cosmos” would be “we don’t know.” I prefer to admit not knowing than to pretend that we have a satisfactory answer.
On mythicism vs. historicism. The evidence looks a bit weak for either side to make strong claims. Some mythicists do overstate their case.
Church vs science in history: I’m inclined to think this is more a case of the mythification of history rather than straight out dishonesty.
My biggest criticism of atheist arguments against Christianity, is that they often argue against extreme forms of fundamentalism, and then the say that you are not a true Christian unless you are one of those extreme fundies. I would class that as a dishonest tactic.
Sorry, but I find the cosmological argument completely dishonest. It purports to use logic to reach a factual conclusion, but without any factual input. That’s quite impossible.
While the truth value of a cosmological argument is obviously binary, the outcome doesn’t have to be regarded as absolutely factual. That would actually be very cavalier. People can assign relative probability to such an argument.
But may I ask what you find dishonest about it? Here’s a formulation of the kalam cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
Following that, it is usually argued that the cause is external to the universe, therefore atemporal (as time is a property of the universe) and then the arguer tries to establish that the cause of the universe is personal.
Now to what part do you object, whether it is any of the numbered lines or the postscript?
Universe from nothing: I think some in the Christian community are over-reacting to this. I see it as a speculative hypothesis, rather than as a truth claim. Perhaps some atheists use it as as truth claim, and I would see that as dishonest. But most scientists will see it as a speculative hypothesis.
I don’t see why they would venture such a speculation, though, as it doesn’t seem like a strong case to me. If nothing is an empty set, without causative properties, how could it in anyway cause/morph/whateverise into a quantum vacuum and thereby into a universe? Surely a quantum vacuum (which I am willing to entertain and accept) has more properties than an empty set?
On mythicism vs. historicism. The evidence looks a bit weak for either side to make strong claims. Some mythicists do overstate their case.
I believe that is incorrect, in favour of “historicism” (I don’t like that label as I consider it just bona fide history – it’s like calling evolution “evolutionism”) we have embarassing statements in the gospels about Jesus, several quite early traditions in the letters of Paul and even an unproblematic non-Christian reference to Jesus by Flavius Josephus (I am not referring to the Testimonium Flavianum, which is problematic but most probably only partially interpolated, rather I refer to the section about the death of Jesus’ brother James). Mythicists generally have to make all kinds of contortions to get round this evidence. And, while this is a cynical admission, I still have to come across an actively debating Mythicist who doesn’t overstate his or her case.
Hi guys, thanks for your comments.
IN, you are right, I should have pointed out there were many positions in between. I will edit it to say that. Thanks.
Neil, thanks for your thoughts.
1. Do you mind telling us where yo find the cosmological argument dishonest? I have given 2 forms of it here, and I’d be happy to add to my text if you can persuade me.
2. Regardless of that, my main point was that Krauss has misrepresented the science. If you follow the link to Luke Barnes’ blog, you will see what I mean.
Looking at the first argument at your link, it begins:
I cannot find any basis for either of those premises, and the evidence suggests that both are wrong.
On Krauss, when he is discussing science he is often worth listening to. But when he is acting as a warrior in the culture wars, he is far to polemical for my liking.
Neil
It seems we are agreed on Krauss. He is a very witty and clear speaker on cosmology but his metaphysics is biased by the conclusions he wants.
Re the Cosmological argument, do you mean “you can find no basis”, or that you know the basis on which people make those propositions but don’t find them compelling?
As best I can tell, they come from simplistic fairy tale thinking.
Thanks for explaining that. “Simplistic” might be correct (though I don’t think so) but “fairy tale” seems way too strong to me. After all, most things we know seem to have causes – even the lorikeets in our yard have figured out that if they perch on the chair near our back door and chirp long enough, we’ll bring some seeds out to them. So it may not be correct to extrapolate to the universe, but it hardly seems like “fairy tale” thinking.
But I think I recall you don’t believe we can define causes, is that right? But whatever we call it, the lorikeets seem to understand something real, and that something, whether a cause or not, seems to make the cosmological argument plausible, to me at least.
I see our notion of “cause” as derived from what we can cause by our own actions. So it does not extend to causing an entire cosmos to exist.
But, even with that notion of cause, events are not simply caused. There are infinitely many causes to any event. If there are biological creatures somewhere on andromeda, their activity has some small effect on what happens here (perhaps a delayed effect).
That is surely true, but surely only part of the explanation. We can see that winter weather “causes” trees to lose their leaves, or that a sunspot “causes” radio interference. And the lorikeets can see their chirping “causes” us to bring out some seed. There are many many apparent cause and effect pairs we can observe that are not resulting from our own actions.
Why doesn’t it, at least probably? I see something resulting from my actions, so I extend that explanation to other people. I see the lorikeets, so I extrapolate from my experience to their behaviour. Surely that is all reasonable?
And if it works in so many cases, what more plausible explanation can you offer? It seems it requires a very stretched kind of agnosticism to maintain that extrapolation isn’t at least reasonable, and most likely the most reasonable explanation on offer.
Do you have another explanation?
You are reading my comment too narrowly. To say that the notion of cause derives from what we can cause, is not to say that it applies only to our actions. We can understand and explain sunspots and their consequences as a result of what we can do (and cause) experimentally in the lab.
I see that as a misuse of “cause”.
And that is also a misuse of “cause”. Both are cases where one might point out that correlation is not causation.
We view our cosmos from the inside. All of our science and all of our ordinary descriptions are based on what we see from the inside. Causing a cosmos purports to be talking about what it would look like from the outside (if “look” even applies on the outside). Anything that we say about what something would look like from outside our cosmos cannot be more than a metaphorical use of words.
Thanks for continuing to respond Neil, I appreciate the opportunity to explore what you are saying. But I find this statement very strange.
Are you really saying that the connection between the lorikeets chirping and our putting out seed is “merely” correlation, unexplained by any causal factors? For I can report that it is definitely not so – we hear them, discuss briefly whether we will put seeds out now, and then (mostly) do so.
Or are you saying there is cause in our actions, but that the lorikeets could not possibly infer this with their tiny brains? I would dispute that, having observed their behaviour for several years now, and come to know some of the birds as individuals.
Can you clarify exactly what you mean here please?
So you don’t have any better way to “explain” the universe, you are arguing that any explanation is so uncertain as to be nonsense?
That seems to me to be an extremely austere way of looking at things. I also feel it is based on a very flimsy argument. It could be similarly argued that we don’t know the world “from the inside” as you say, but from the outside – the only thing we know from the inside is our brains or minds. In which case, on your argument, we couldn’t say anything about the external world with any confidence. And yet you clearly think that we can explain sunspots.
So it seems to me you have chosen to be sceptical and agnostic about one form of externality, but not about another. What would you say to that?
I would not put it that way.
I take “cause” to be properly used in the sense of event A caused event B. That’s how science normally uses “cause”, and it is what the cosmological argument would seem to require.
There’s a weaker statistical sense of “cause”, as in “an increase in the practice of smoking will cause an increase in the incidence of lung cancer. That’s too weak to use for the cosmological argument.
I see the existence of the cosmos as unexplained and as unexplainable. We can at most speculate.
You have changed the subject from “inside the cosmos” to “inside ourselves”. You have changed it to the kind of thing that I sometimes discuss on my blog. But it seems inappropriate here.
We do have information about the world. We do not have information about what is outside our cosmos.
Perhaps it will turn out that quantum weirdness is information about what is outside our cosmos. But until we learn to use that to start to understand what is outside the cosmos, we won’t have a basis for explaining why there is a cosmos.
So what is the difference? Multiple causes vs single causes? 100% identified causes vs less than 100%? It seems to me it is a quantitative difference you are talking about here, not a qualitative one. And therefore arbitrary. But can you explain how you differentiate please?
If “cosmos” is defined as everything physical, everything space-time, then science can never have knowledge of what is outside it, by definition. But revelation or the action of God within the cosmos may offer evidence for something non-physical as a cause. Do you reject the possibility of such evidence, or just the actual evidence as you see it?
I see them to be as different as night and day. That probably comes from a background in science. If you don’t see a sharp difference, then I don’t know how to explain that to you.
I don’t reject the possibility that there could be evidence. It’s just that there isn’t any such evidence that meets a reasonable standard of credibility.
They seem quantitatively different to me, but not qualitatively. One may be simpler to identify, that seems to me to be about it. So I guess we can go no further with that then.
Again we disagree, for I think there is far more evidence of God than against (obviously, or I wouldn’t have set up this website). I think one can maintain a theoretical level of agnosticism if one sets high enough standards for required evidence, but I think that is impractical in real life. So that is clearly a major point of difference between us.
Thanks for the opportunity to explore to this point.
It is true that the consensus for Jesus’ historicity is overwhelming yet it is also true that there are no historical primary sources that can even testify to Jesus’ existence much less anything he might have said or done. From this point of view if he were not the supposed originator of the world’s most popular religion he would probably have no more status than other mythological characters.
You have also misrepresented Lawrence Krauss. He is well aware that his book represents only one possible hypothesis for origins. His ideas probably still have more credibility than the “god from nowhere” hypothesis. Also please note the Kraussian universe does not “contain energy and potential”. The sum total of all energy/matter in the Kraussian universe, (right up to the present day), is zero
Hey Gordon. The evidence for Jesus is to some degree comparable to that of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius was a religious figure, but not the founder of any currently popular religion that I’m aware of. Still, his historicity is also accepted by the relevant scholars.
The fact is that Jesus’ existence is close to factual. We have the letters of an early follower who claims to have met people who did meet Jesus, including his brother. People who deny Jesus’ historicity will go at great lengths to explain that away, but their readings are improbable at best.
Then it is also independently referred to by Josephus, whose sentence about Jesus is partially authentic according to scholars.
These might not be what you call a primary source, but then again on that basis you would also have to conclude that Solon, Nicholas of Myra and Apollonius of Tyana were mythological. Actually, with this criterion Simon bar Kosiba should have been declared mythological until the En Gedi texts were found. So it is not a very useful method.
@IgnorantiaNescia
I am not qualified to argue the toss with you about Jesus’ historicity. I merely point out the evidence is poor in order to validate miracles, eternal wisdom and godhood:
There is no contemporary witness produced documentation.
He is unmentioned by the contemporary historians that did exist.
There is no archaeological information
While he might have existed the details of his life recorded decades later by unknown authors with unknown sources is a very poor basis upon which to declare Jesus an important historical character and attribute gospel material to him.
As for Apollonius, nobody seriously believes stories of miracles by him. At least some of those writing about him are known to history unlike the evangelists.
@unkleE
re the cosmological, (first cause), argument.
You should note that the cause/effect chain depends upon time. That is the cause always precedes the effect. It is therefore incoherent to talk about a cause for the universe “when” time didn’t exist.
I don’t know why you find the simple admission “I don’t know” so difficult.
Also the claim that all effects have causes is an inference. There is some doubt that this inference holds true at the quantum level.
Also I expect you are a supporter of “free will”. You should note that this would involve the human mind being able to act independently of causation.
Hi Gordon, thanks again for commenting, I appreciate the opportunity to interact.
In approaching historical questions like this, we surely have to use the criteria developed by professional historians, and not the criteria of other disciplines like physics or the law. This blog post is a useful explanation here. I feel you are applying non-historical criteria, and that is why the experts generally disagree with you.
I certainly haven’t tried to misrepresent him. My problem with Krauss is not that he “represents only one possible hypothesis for origins” but that he claims to present a hypothesis for origins when in fact he does not. He merely shows how the universe evolved after its origin.
And I am not alone in this. Eminent cosmologist Martin Rees reviewed Krauss’ book, and was careful not to say he had explain origins, but only that he had explained how “our complex cosmos has evolved from a hot, dense state”, which is a very different thing from nothing. Likewise cosmologist Luke Barnes and Philosopher of Science David Albert agree Krauss has not done what the title of his book claims.
No, but it seems to be universal. Atheists often say that God “explains nothing”, and then react if a theist says that at least they have an explanation for the universe, whereas the atheists don’t. I see that as inconsistent.
Unexplained facts are just begging for an explanation. Imagine if you were arguing against the existence of God based on the difficulty of explaining the suffering in the world, and I as a theist simply shrugged my shoulders and said: I don’t know why you find the simple admission “I don’t know” so difficult. You would think you had got the better of that argument, and I think you would be right.
So when an atheist does the same about the cosmological argument, the same conclusion should be drawn. I think that is reasonable, don’t you?
@unkleE
Your, characterisation of me as expecting scientific type “certainty” is not merited. I make no judgement of balance of evidence. I only note how poor it is in order to reach any firm conclusion and especially to support a world view on which to make decisions about life.
Tim O’Neill who wrote the blog you referenced is not a professional historian, nor does his expertise lie in first century Middle Eastern history. However, he does understand the historical method and is a lot more of a historian than I am.
Nevertheless his example of argument to best explanation, the historical Jesus is, I suggest, one he is not qualified to make. More qualified historians with much better expertise in this area declare that the argument to best explanation of the evidence is given by a mythicist hypothesis.
Nevertheless, none of this is what I claim. Tim O’Neill does seem to agree with me that there are no primary sources for a historical Jesus. His admission that the evidence is sparse supports my contention that it does not merit the confidence generally expressed in the details of Jesus’ life.
An explanation that explains anything you want it to explain does indeed explain nothing. I don’t have an explanation of why there is something rather than nothing and it is certainly true that I mentally sneer at the “God did it” explanation since there is no explanation for God.
That’s no excuse for inventing unfalsifiable explanations and maintaining they are in some way better than no explanation.
Hi Gordon. I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to characterise you in any way. I was just making a statement about how I see things.
This interests me. Can you tell me who these qualified historians are? The consensus of scholars, as far as I can ascertain, is overwhelmingly against the mythicist hypothesis.
Then it remains true that I have an explanation of the most fundamental fact in the entire universe, that it exists, whereas you do not. And my explanation accounts for a whole lot of other facts also (e.g. the design of the universe). And application of Bayes Theorem suggests that this is indeed way better than no explanation.
I’m guessing that wanting any explanation, even if wrong, may be why Krauss has overstated his case.
@unkleE
As I have already said, I agree that the consensus is heavily against mythicism but there are fully qualified historians with expertise on this particular period of history who think differently:
Richard Carrier who writes about an amateur mythicist book in the following manner:
Doherty’s book, The Jesus Puzzle, is what convinced Carrier of the mythicist case.
Robert M. Price who has also spoken about Earl Doherty the amateur mythicist author in the following manner:
Hi Gordon, I think this clarifies things considerably. Yes there are a couple of qualified historians who are mythicists, but:
1. There are literally thousands of qualified historians who are not.
2. These two historians have relevant PhD qualifications, but I don’t think either of them are at respected academic institutions, and don’t seem to have the respect of their peers.
3. Two out of thousands is probably less than the number of qualified biologists who are not evolutionists, but what would you think if I quoted PhD creationists? (BTW I am not a “creationist”.)
Clearly you are free to quote, or believe, whoever you wish, but I am a little surprised that you would think that was a case worth presenting to others. But thanks for your input.
The case I am arguing here is not mythicism. I have not the expertise to judge this stuff and anyway I’ve never read any mythicist books. I’m just not sufficiently interested. Jesus’ historicity can hardly matter to an atheist.
I am arguing for a more general acceptance of just how poor the evidence is such that fully qualified historians can take a view completely counter to the consensus and back up this view by reference to the historical method.
My original comment on this matter was provoked by you when you wrote:
There is no consensus on the validity of gospel stories. In particular acceptance of Jesus’ miracles, while no survey has been done, is a lot more patchy than acceptance of historicity.
If Christians cannot muster the humility to accept the rocky basis of their belief they should at least keep it to themselves to a greater extent.
Hi Gordon,
1. Yes it is true that two people with PhD’s in history contest the consensus, but that hardly indicates the evidence is poor. Like I said, there are PhD biologists who are creationists. Some people don’t accept global warming, or believe in the Holocaust, etc. It just indicates that there will always be some who come out with strange ideas.
2. You say you haven’t read much and you don’t have much interest in Jesus and history. So, I don’t wish to be rude, but surely that means you don’t really know how much historical evidence is “good” and therefore how reliable the history of Jesus is? Surely you should trust the consensus of experts?
3. There is plenty of consensus on the gospels. Almost everyone agrees that we have far more textual evidence and closer to the event than for almost any other ancient history. EP Sanders has summarised a bunch of statements about Jesus’ life that are almost beyond dispute, and most scholars go at least that far. Most scholars accept that Jesus was known as a miracle-worker, whatever may be the truth about what actually happened. A survey suggested that a majority of scholars believe Jesus’ tomb was empty and/or that his disciples had some visionary experiences of him after his death, however we may explain that.
So that is well short of full christian belief, but it is way beyond mythicism and the statements you have made.
In the end, we either accept the experts’ opinions or we don’t. From there we can go on to decide what we believe that the historians cannot fully agree on or demonstrate.
@unkleE
It is true that I am not qualified to assess the probability of Jesus’ historicity. That is why I don’t make assessments myself but rely on the opinions of the properly qualified. But I am familiar enough with the historical method to know there are no primary historical sources. This, of necessity, means that our view of him via the gospels is uncertain.
There is much less consensus about the historical reliability of gospel content than you indicate. Even a fair proportion of Christians don’t accept miracle stories.
It is thought that the degree of interpolation is extensive. At the end of the twentieth century there was a group of scholars, around 150, called The Jesus Seminar who were able to agree that only a small proportion of the gospels could be relied upon.
It does you no good to compare mythicism with crackpot theories. The crackpot theories you mention are countered by good science or living witnesses. There is no equivalent counter to mythicism and certainly no equivalent counter to claims of gospel unreliability.
Lastly you said:
What statement did I make that you felt was particularly outlandish?
Hi Gordon, I don’t want to be critical all the time, but it seems I have to be again, I’m sorry.
What do you mean by “primary” sources? I wonder if you are using the word in a different way to historians.
Historian Maurice Casey, who is not a christian, says in chapter 2 of his book “Jesus of Nazareth”: “The most important sources for the life and teachings of Jesus are in my view the first three Gospels” He ends the chapter by describing these as “primary sources”.
Were you forgetting the gospels, or have you some historiographical reasons for rejecting them?
I am aware of them, and have read one of their books. Are you aware that:
1. The only mythicist among them (as far as I am aware) was the same Robert Price.
2. The Seminar was never mainstream (though it included some respected scholars), and its methods and conclusions have been roundly criticised by mainstream scholars. Maurice Casey again: “the American Jesus Seminar …. grievously misled anyone who believed what it said.” Other respected scholars are similarly critical.
3. Even the Jesus Seminar concluded that 15-20% of the sayings and stories about Jesus were probably historical, quite enough to establish quite a lot about him.
I don’t feel any particular statement is particularly outlandish, rather that your general approach too often ignores the consensus of the most eminent secular scholars in favour of a few somewhat unrepresentative scholars. As a result, you make statements that don’t seem to reflect the true situation – about primary sources, the historical value of the gospels, the amount of evidence for Jesus, etc.
@unkleE
The gospels do not count as primary sources because:
They were not produced at the time or shortly afterwards by eye witnesses.
The authors are unknown and have produced no other work which might enable their competence and motives to be assessed, (excepting that the author of Luke may also have been the author of Acts).
We cannot place the authors with any confidence in a geographical area and cultural context.
What comes down to us is not the original documents but copies which are known to have been heavily emended by subsequent copyists.
Even the date of production is unknown.
If Maurice Casey did use the words “primary sources” to refer to the gospels he must have been using it in the sense of principle sources rather than in the strict historical method meaning. I guess he could have meant that the gospels are the closest thing to primary sources that exists.
The ideal primary source is something produced at the time or shortly thereafter by a well attested eye witness for a known purpose.
If the eye witness is not known it is just as good if he is a government or other functionary performing a regular clerical task. – A church registry springs to mind.
The fact that the Jesus seminar contained a mythicist is not relevant to anything I am trying to argue for.
I use the seminar to indicate that the consensus on the historical value of gospel material is a lot more ragged than you would like to believe.
I suggest that the number of historians who take the gospels as “gospel” so to speak, is probably in a minority.
I note that all you object to is my general approach. I guess that I am more suspicious of claims to a consensus for the historical value of Christian writings when it comes to descriptions of what Jesus said or did than the average person.
Hi Gordon, you list a number of reasons why the gospels are not “primary sources” and yet Maurice Casey regards three of them as exactly that. So you must be using the term differently to him, and I guess other historians.
Why don’t you do a little research and report back on how other ancient texts compare to the gospels on the criteria you use? Can you tell me how other texts compare on number of sources, how long after the events they were written, how long after they were written were the earliest extant copies, and how many copies we have?
You misunderstand me. I have never suggested other than that there is a wide range of opinion. But I have discussed the consensus of the most respected scholars. There are many things scholars still disagree on, but 2o years ago EP Sanders (perhaps the most respected of all living scholars) produced a statement of things “almost beyond dispute”, and few of the most eminent scholars would disagree with this list, and most would probably add a few things since then. I quote this list in Is there really a consensus of scholars on historical facts about Jesus? Why don’t you read that page and tell me what in it you disagree with?
Again you misunderstand me. I have never talked about historians taking the gospels as “gospel”, merely taking them as reasonable historical sources.
@unkleE
There seems little point in demonstrating the quality of sources of other ancient events/periods. I’m sure they’re all nearly as bad. But the difference is that people are not basing their entire lives on what Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great is supposed to have said or done. The information in the gospels is being passed along to believers as “gospel”. When that is far from the case.
Here is what Bart D. Ehrman, an admitted agnostic but a professor of new testament studies and a lecturer to prospective priests says:
So it’s not that mainstream scholars are unaware of the problems with scripture, it’s the fact that, when push comes to shove, they act as though there aren’t any and the average Christian is led up the garden path.
However, having said all that. I will relent. While I stand by my assessment that the gospels are very bad sources for the reasons given, I think you are right that in the absence of anything better historians are treating them as primary sources and refer to them as such.
Lastly, although there is little point to it as I am in no way qualified I’m going to have a poke at E P Sanders, (perhaps the most respected of all living scholars according to your characterisation):
Here is what Sanders says about Josephus and John the Baptist:
Now here is what you can actually find in Josephus.org – Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119:
Well, it’s true I am a complete layman, but I can’t see any reference in Josephus to:
an eschatological prophet of repentance
the preaching in the desert
the dress, which recalled Elijah
the message of repentance in preparation for the coming judgment.
Can you see any such references?
To me it seems clear that Sanders is reading the gospels back into Josephus and then using his findings to justify his statement: “These features correctly pass unquestioned in New Testament scholarship.”
If this is the quality of “the most respected of all living scholars”, I’d hate to see the work of the ropier ones. On the other hand, who am I to judge?
Hi Gordon, it seems you are a historical sceptic, and would doubt virtually all ancient history, at least while having this discussion. Do you really (at other times) doubt the lives of Hannibal, Alexander, etc?
What difference does that make? If you were in a burning building and unsure of the way out, you would not wait for scientific proof of the best exit, I’m sure! You would make the best decision you could with the information available. Same with Jesus. I have heard this argument many times, and I think it is erroneous and a diversion.
I don’t think your quote is relevant. He is describing how fundamentalist christians react to Biblical christians. I am not fundamentalist, and I am well aware of what Ehrman says (and he does occasionally exaggerate). But read what he says about the question we are discussing:
“I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.”
Perhaps if you understood the culture and idiom, and how words and descriptions were used in that culture, and by Josephus, you might understand Sanders’ conclusions. I don’t have that background either, but I respect his life of learning. He is really quite a conservative scholar, on the sceptical side of centre.
Thank you for your concession about primary sources, even though it is a backhanded concession. You are applying inappropriate standards to historical text, demanding greater certainty than they can give, and then rejecting the work of experienced scholars. Remember that it won’t be long before the Holocaust has passed from living memory and not long after then that the Vietnam war, the World Trade centre bombings and the Iraq wars will pass from living memory. Of course we will have far more material evidence, but it will be from very diverse viewpoints, and it won’t be easy for future historians to be as sure as you want about the rights and wrongs of those events.
Even in your own life, do you trust your memory too much? Perhaps you only think you remember you are an atheist and a determinist? Perhaps I am only a clever computer on this end of the discussion, and not a human being as you think? Perhaps all that science you think is proved is only in your faulty memory (and even if you go back and check the books or do the experiments yourself, it will be memory again immediately afterwards). I am not serious of course, just suggesting where extreme scepticism leads.
I think this has been a worthwhile discussion, and I thank you for it. But it seems to me that you are very selective with your ultra-scepticism. You reject or question the findings of the vast mass of ancient historians, yet you chose to accept the teachings of Carrier and Price. And these guys are not historical sceptics, they don’t say we can know nothing, they have very clear theories about the alternative history that they espouse, theories that the mass of historians find unconvincing based on the evidence. Yet you accepted their views, then questioned the reliability of the history of the consensus.
It is not my business to try to convince you of anything, I am happy just to have the discussion we have had. But I find your conclusions not well supported by the evidence, but rather based on selective evidence. You doubtless will feel I am wrong about this, and I apologise in advance if it offends you. So perhaps we should leave it at that, and re-convene on another discussion if you wish.
Thanks for your courtesy and input. Best wishes.
I doubt everything. On the other hand I see no reason not to believe much of ancient history. After all the stakes for me personally are not high one way or the other.
The more outlandish the claim and the more important the information the better the standard of evidence needs to be.
A claim that an argument is wrong is no refutation. I fail to see the relevance of your burning building. You have a clear choice as far as the gospels are concerned, That is to give only the weight to this evidence that it merits and not to use its claims as part your world view rather than your current approach. You seem aware of the best scholarship on the subject but you still treat the gospels as good biographical evidence of Jesus’ life.
No he’s not he is describing ordinary mainstream seminary students. His message is clear. These students, when they become priests, are misrepresenting what the gospels actually are to their flocks.
I don’t know why you keep trying to turn this discussion into an argument about Jesus’ historicity. I have nowhere claimed he didn’t exist. You should try and stop yourself constructing straw men. It’s bad form and shows you can’t deal with your opponents real arguments.
You realise the above is just an appeal to authority and in no way answers my criticism of Sanders. But that’s OK. I accept I have no business criticising him anyway.
But one wonders how much other critical analysis of the actual text is so influenced by the scholar’s confessional interest.
Science does not prove things about reality. It only provides evidence for them. You should think of all complex knowledge about the world as a virtual model of the world. We can improve this model indefinitely but we cannot prove that our knowledge reflects reality exactly. The key word is “utility”. As long as our new model works better than the old one in terms of modelling reality we assume it’s closer to the real thing.
I don’t reject historical research. I just know from experience that it can present a misleading picture. What I’m interested in is military history. If you read three different historians on the same event in comparatively recent history you start to realise the problems with the discipline. It doesn’t mean two of the historians are wrong. It probably means they’re all wrong. Nevertheless each will have unearthed some interesting approach to the sources.
Gordon, do you have a reference for your quote of Sanders? I have some time to track it down.
Hi Gordon, I’m thinking now might be a good time to end this particular discussion. Here’s why.
1. If you check back, you’ll see that you said: “More qualified historians with much better expertise in this area declare that the argument to best explanation of the evidence is given by a mythicist hypothesis.” So you did claim that the mythicist explanation was the best one.
2. I was answering your Ehrman quote inferring that he supported your view that there was little historical evidence for jesus. The relevant part of the quote, which you didn’t answer, was: “We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” and this shows he doesn’t support your view.
So I attempted to deal with your “real arguments”, but you have forgotten the claim you made and not addressed my argument.
My experience is that when discussions get to this sort of stage, they very rarely improve in tone. Therefore I propose that we both stop at this point before either of us is tempted to say something unpleasant. Thank you for your interest.
@IgnorantiaNescia
re: E P Sanders
I don’t have a copy but it’s “Jesus and Judaism” around page 92 I think.
I mentioned support of mythicism by qualified historians not because I support it but because their existence underlines how the evidence, such as it is, can be made to support entirely opposed points of view. My contention is that the evidence is too poor to support any firm position on the historical value of the content of the gospels.
Okay, I’ll check the reference. Thank you.
The examples of individual scholars you gave do not allow this conclusion, though. Maurice Casey’s claim of primary sources has been rejected by you, though I don’t think you have read about his dating of gMark, which would allow such a statement if true. You have quoted Sanders mostly to distance yourself from him. And while part of what Ehrman says in your quote is hyperbolic (aside the Gospel of Thomas, only an idiot would consider the apocryphal gospels a reliable source), what he mostly does is asking why pastors don’t trickle their knowledge down. There are indeed scholars who do question very much to the point of questioning things like whether Jesus was religiously a Jew, but these are typically very biased.