Loading...In this final post (for now) on the historian and miracles, I want to emphasize one point that I raise of my own volition, and answer one question that has been asked by a reader.
First, a point to emphasize (I borrow this from my forthcoming book on How Jesus Became God), on whether my stand on miracles just means that I’m a crazy secularist….
The reason that historians cannot prove or disprove whether God has performed a miracle in the past – such as by raising Jesus from the dead – is not because historians are required to be secular humanists with an anti-supernaturalist bias. I want to stress this point because conservative Christian apologists, in order to score debating points, often claim that this is the case. In their view, if historians did not have anti-supernaturalist biases or assumptions, they would be able to affirm the historical “evidence” that Jesus was raised from the dead. I should point out that these Christian apologists almost never consider the “evidence” for other miracles from the past that have comparable – or even better – evidence to support them: there were dozens of senators who claimed that the first Roman king Romulus was snatched up into heaven from their midst, for example; and there are many thousands of commited Roman Catholics who can attest that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared to them, alive – a claim that fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians roundly discount, even though the “evidence” of it is very extensive indeed. It’s always easy to scream “Anti-Supernatural Bias” when someone does not think that the miracles of your own tradition can be historically established; it’s much harder to admit that miracles of other traditions are just as readily demonstrated. In any event, my view is that none of these divine miracles, or any others, can be established historically.
Second: a response to a good question. One reader asked if this doesn’t meant that we cannot talk about the resurrection event at *all* if we are being historians. I think the answer is that we can indeed talk about various aspects of the resurrection, even if we cannot address the question of whether it really happened (historically).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
That is crystal clear and a fine response. (I would love you to amplify on the six bulletin points but you have probably already done so … if a link isn’t too much trouble…)
I guess this area is pretty sensitive and the historian is loath to do too much in the way of interpretation. When I was at school and studying the history of the second world war I remember A J P Taylor looked at the evidence and decided that the war was basically a war between Russia and Germany and the rest was a side show. He couldn’t prove it but it was his interpretation and, a pretty sensitive interpretation to boot.
It seems to me to be pretty legit activity for an historian to do. Basically say “Because I don’t think there is evidence to show he had a decent burial and because it is unclear who, if indeed anyone, found an empty tomb etc etc I conclude that there are no grounds for BELIEVING (my emphasis) that a supernatural event took place”
Mebbe that is a step too far particularly in a field where I guess folk write books arguing about the position of, commas (sic ;-))
It makes sense to me to explain, on historical grounds, the emergence of the resurrection story by saying they probably hallucinated. The other options, that the resurrection really happened or that the disciples lied or that the whole story was made up (they never hallucinated, they never lied, etc. because the whole story is a story that arose after the disciples were dead).
However, in terms of all the miracle stories in the gospels (Jesus walking on water, etc.), given the early written tradition do you think the disciples were aware of some of these miracle stories, in oral form. Of course, they were probably written down in the gospels after they died. If yes they were aware, do you think they would have said “hey guys!, these miracles didn’t happen!” If they were not aware, how do we account for soo many of them fairly early in the gospels? How did the miracle stories arise so fast and so quickly given their not historical?
I assume it’s because the very first Christians who told the stories about Jesus after his death thought the he was the Son of God, and as such, he could do spectacular deeds.
So its likely these first Christians never saw these so called miracles. Just made them all up. I wonder when this happend. Paul begaj writing this in the 50s and he had some connections to the disciples. Wonder if he and they knew about some or any of these miracle stories at that time and why we don’t see any evidence that they tried to stop these miracles. Couldn’t have heen a ton of christians in the 50s. So maybe these mirafles were invented between 50s and 70s. I would have thought paul would try to correct this tradition. If he wasn’t aware of it there must have been a early group of christians we don’t know about making this all up.
I don’t think it takes long for amazing stories to be made up. When I was a charismatic Christian in the late ’70s, I heard stories all the time about miracles that had happened the week before….
You may have gone over this before, but do you think the earliest Christians, Peter, Paul, and Mary etc. believed in the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus, or do you think they believed his “spirit” was raised from the dead? From Paul’s writing it’s hard for me to judge.
I ask this because it seems easier for me to attribute the resurrection belief to “hallucinations” if they were only experiencing visions of Jesus’ spirit. Even group “hallucinations” of Jesus’ spirit seems plausible, maybe during a groups ecstatic experience or something.
On the other hand I think there’s difficulty with the idea that several people hallucinated an experiences with a seemingly physical Jesus.
I think they thought his body came out of the grave. Maybe I’ll deal with this in a fuller post. But I should say that hallucinations of Jesus for *apocalpytic* Jews would have been taken to suggest his body was raised, since for them that is what hte afterlife was. And lots of peole (1 out of 8) hallucinate what they take to be physical bodies that aren’t really there….
Bart.
Second time lucky with this question!
” I don’t think there’s a chance that anyone came to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead because they found his tomb empty. If they did know where he was buried (they didn’t) and then found that the tomb was empty (they didn’t), all sorts of other thoughts would occur to them other than “He’s ALIVE”!!! ”
I was listening recently to an interview you did. During the interview, you spoke about Paul (in relation to his beliefs/experiences of the resurrected Jesus) and the Apocalyptic beliefs held by the first “Christians”.
To paraphrase: you said that the first “Christians” believed that one of the features of the Kingdom of God, which those who had an Apocalyptic outlook believed was about to be realized, would be the bodily resurrection of the dead; you also said that the “appearances” made by the resurrected Jesus to Peter, Mary M, Paul, or whomever would have convinced the visionaries that the establishment of the KOG was, indeed, imminent (hence Paul’s use of the metaphor of “the firstfruits”).
In that case, why would the first “Christians” have been surprised by the empty tomb?
Wasn’t the emptiness of the tomb a clear sign of what they were expecting; namely, that Jesus had been resurrected?
If you’re referring to what happened actually, historically, my view is that they never did discover an empty tomb (as I’ll explain in my forthcoming book, How Jesus Became God)
But if Jesus’ body was placed in a tomb , the earliest “Christians” must have believed that it would emerge from the tomb, no?
Also, if I could ask you a related question on the empty tomb.
I came across a documentary that featured a scholar called Helmut Koester. His theory regarding the account of empty tomb was as follows: there was a tradition in 1st C Palestine that involved the praying by Jews at the tombs of supposed prophets and martyrs, and it is likely that this was done by those who venerated Jesus. However, when the war with Rome started in the 60s, this was no longer possible; therefore, the story of the empty tomb came about to explain the fact that praying at the tomb was no longer done. This theory also explains why Paul never referred to the empty tomb.
Does this theory enjoy support by many (any) scholars these days?
No, I don’t know anyone who holds that theory. My sense is that the idea that the tomb was empty occurred before 66 CE. In my own view, though, the earliest Christians did think Jesus had come out of a tomb, even though there probably never was a tomb….
Hope I’m not too late to ask a question on this thread. but
Where do you think the story of Joseph of Arimathaea came from? It seems pretty well attested to. It’s in the Synoptics and John, but you seem to doubt the veracity of the story.
Also Paul in 1 Cor 15 talks about Jesus being buried, a tradition he must have learned, or at least confirmed with Peter and James etc. in Jerusalem, Why would those closest to Jesus, around at the time of his execution believe he was *buried* or entombed if he wasn’t. By the way, I note the the word buried, because I don’t know if the Greek word used could mean thrown into a common pit, I as believe you mentioned a possibility before.
I deal with the question more in my forthcoming book How Jesus Became God. Basically, I think the early Christians had to have a plausible explanation for Jesus’ burial since they watned to declare that the tomb was later found empty; and so a name came to be attached to the one who allegedly buried Jesus. Why someone named Joseph and why from Arimathea — I haven’t figured out!
I wish you would, not necessarily accept, but devote more attention to, the possibilities that either (a) Jesus – who we know believed he was the Messiah! – might also have convinced himself, and told some of his disciples, that if his enemies killed him “prematurely,” God would raise him from the dead; and/or (b) some of those disciples had *drug-assisted* “visions,” in an era when most people didn’t understand that “visions” of that type can’t be trusted.
Yes, I’ve thought about both a good bit over the years, and I just don’t think that either one is the way it worked. (I used to wholeheardedly believe #1; and I just don’t think the disciples where doing speed….)
A possible problem: if we trivialize the resurrection experiences (or whatever it was) , regarding them as some sort of not very extraordinary visions or hallucinations, how could they drive the disciples’ return to Jerusalem, the establishment of the first community and the formation of the counter-intuitive dogma of the sacrificed Messiah? I think there must have been something more, a kind of bridge between his original teaching and his death as experienced by the disciples, something that in hindsight made them to accept this dogma easily.
The think about hallucinations is that people who have them are almost always completely and enthusiastically convinced that they are of real people — not of “mind events.” The disciples really thought Jesus appeared to them, whether he did or not.
I’m fine with this explanation when it deals with individual visions. I do not believe in mass hallucinations. I don’t know what happened at Fatima (I don’t think Mary appeared), but 130 000 people do not share a hallucination. It is enormously implausible.I think the Fatima incident must have been a combination of effects resulting from staring directly at the sun for hours, waiting for something to happen, combined with false memories after people started talking to each other, and mass hysteria.
As for Paul’s claim in 1Cor15, he doesn’t say much about the nature of the appearances. Joseph Smith’s 12 witnesses claimed they saw the golden plates delivered by an angel with their “spiritual eyes”, by faith. When you read their accounts, it seems to me they were talked into believing they had seen something by a con man, and they didn’t psychologically want to be “less spiritual” than the others in the group of 12 witnesses and so they really, really wanted to see the plates revealed by an angel. So in this case I think we are dealing with a mixture of fraud and self-deception.
Without such details in the case of Jesus’ mass appearances after his death, it is really hard to guess what happened. But mass hallucination? No way.
I don’t think people *literally* all saw Mary. But they saw something. One guy says to the next, “Hey, that’s Mary!” That guy says, good god, you’re right! And the word starts spreading, and by the end of it all, there are masses who say they saw Mary…. Or something like that.
Hmm, yes. Something like that. When it comes to Paul and the 500, the whole thing raises a lot of questions:
– What is the source of his claim? He said in Galatians he received his knowledge of the gospel directly from Jesus.
– Why do none of the gospel writers mention this event? Luke in particular claimed to be very thorough in his account. Perhaps they did not find the reports credible?
– Where were these 500 witnesses at the day of Pentecost in Acts where only 120 people were present?
– Why do people in the gospel narratives not recognize Jesus until their eyes are “opened”? Why does he seem to be a stranger to them at first? This is a very peculiar detail…
The more I learn the more I question.
Might Jesus have survived the cross? It seems to me his survival is more likely (considering the laws of nature) than his death and resurrection considering what discrepancies there are in the accounts. For example, in one account (John 20:16-17) he insists that he not be touched, as he had not yet ascended to the Father; yet, in another account Mathew 28:9) he is touched and worshiped.
As you would ask, then, Bart, which is it? Could he be touched or he could not be touched?
Was he raised physically – so there would be wounds to be touched, as in the matter of “Doubting Thomas” or in a glorified, perfect state, that would bear no scars to be touched, one would think?
If, as you say, as much as a week passed prior to the first sighting of him, it makes better sense to me to believe that he survived the cross and had recovered well enough to be seen, and seen not only in the Galilee but India, where it is said he is also buried. It was Josephus, I think, who’s own friend survived crucifixion. He was taken down from the cross, I believe, escaping the most torturous suffering that was known to last days. Jesus was on the cross but 6 hours, it is said. What evidence do we have that proves he was really dead?
As for did he receive a decent burial after the crucifixion? We have the Gospel account of the temporary tomb from which he, according to custom, as I understand it, would have been moved from after the Sabbath and placed in a more permanent tomb in which he would have laid, decomposing, for all of a year, prior to being placed in niche in a bone box. John’s account seems to support this for the women, or women, went to prepare his body for burial but found him missing from the tomb.
To me, it stands to reason, then, that if the temporary tomb was found empty, someone moved him after the Sabbath, but who and to where? James, the brother of Jesus, perhaps? I’m not opposed to pondering the possibility of a family tomb in Talpiot.
Dear Bart,
Your post on the resurrection prompted me to do a little net surfing, and I came across your debate with Christian apologist William Lane Craig on the subject on YouTube. That prompted me to want to know who this William Lane Craig fellow is, and it turns out that in spite of his credentials and debating skills, he is really out there (kooky and spooky) in some of his views. He tried to badger and goad Richard Hawkins into a debate a couple of years ago, and that prompted Dawkins to write this piece for the Guardian.
“Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig: This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him”
Below is the link.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
Very interesting!!!
Didn’t Craig want to publish a book about the(your) debate but you refused? It seems to me he is eager to grab any publicity.
Hmmm… I don’t remember!
Criag is a very smart man and a makes good points on a stance he is genuine about. i dont agree with him but he does win most of his debates for a reason. would you considered going round 2 with him sometime in the future?
I’m always open to invitations. But I do have to restrict how many engagements I accept, since I do like to see my wife and dog….
You say:
” I want to stress this point because conservative Christian apologists, in order to score debating points, often claim that this is the case. In their view, if historians did not have anti-supernaturalist biases or assumptions, they would be able to affirm the historical “evidence” that Jesus was raised from the dead. I should point out that these Christian apologists almost never consider the “evidence” for other miracles from the past that have comparable – or even better – evidence to support them: there were dozens of senators who claimed that the first Roman king Romulus was snatched up into heaven from their midst, for example; and there are many thousands of commited Roman Catholics who can attest that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared to them, alive – a claim that fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians roundly discount, even though the “evidence” of it is very extensive indeed. It’s always easy to scream “Anti-Supernatural Bias” when someone does not think that the miracles of your own tradition can be historically established; it’s much harder to admit that miracles of other traditions are just as readily demonstrated. In any event, my view is that none of these divine miracles, or any others, can be established historically.”
The conduct of evangelicals is not acceptable. However there biased conduct does not excuse other people to be biased in how or when they apply the criteria historians use.
In evaluating whether a miracle occurred one usually does take into account more than just the historical criteria used to evaluate written accounts. But that does not mean that the criteria can not be applied. It can obviously be applied.
The accounts
Miracles are a form of evidence of God. If one is choosing what miracle accounts to accept (if any) what sort of criteria should be used if not the historical criteria?
So lets say you look at the accounts of the Roman king Romulus being taken up to heaven. Lets say that it is multiply attested. It might be very clear that there is in fact historical evidence that this in happened. But that does not mean that is all a person can look at. Is the claim that a God did this? If so then one might look at other evidence of that God and determine how likely that is. The evidence might involve further historical evidence or philosophical issues. Is the claim that he did this with the help of a hover pad? Well then scientists might also be called in to evaluate and provide other evidence. Historical evidence is not the only type of evidence. So there is no reason to be afraid to say the historical evidence supports and claim but we have other concerns that cause us to doubt it. Doing that would be clear and straightforward in what you are doing. Science often plays a role in proving things as does philosophy – by way of critical thinking in many court cases. Historical evidence and analysis is one piece of the puzzle.
You then say:
“So too with the resurrection of Jesus. Historians have no way of confirming or disconfirming it (let me stress: history cannot show that it didn’t happen any more than it can show that it did!).”
But first, you do claim that the probability of miracles happening is excedingly low. In you lectures on the historical Jesus, you seem to flip back and forth on this. In one paragraph you say well I will concede miracles do happen for the sake of argument. But then a few paragraphs later you are saying that the likely hood that a miracle happen are “so infinitesimally remote that you can’t even calculate it.” You claim you are making this objection as a historian. So if a historian can not confirm or disconfirm miracles why are you assigning these very low probabilities to them happening? It seems to me that the problem is you have a philosophical (and possibly a social problem in that you are worried what a community will think) with miracles. The philosophical problem has to do with your not understanding that something being a supernatural event is not necessarily the same as it being “improbable”. If I saw Jesus heal 10 people through supernatural means and someone said he healed an 11th I wouldn’t say that was improbable even though I could concede it was supernatural. In any event this is a philosophical issue not a history issue.
Second problem with this statement is that *of course* historical criteria can be used to confirm or disconfirm miracle claims. Lets say someone gives an account of a miracle. He is the only one to give this account even though it should have been seen by hundreds of people. He contradicts himself constantly about how it happened. He has a huge incentive to say this miracle happened so he is extremely biased. He is writing about this miracle happening over 1000 years after it happened. And his account is contextually inconsistent.
Why would one think we can not use the historical criteria of:
1) Multiple sources
2) Preferably Independent sources
3) Non biased sources
4) Contextual credibility
5) Close in time to the events
6) No contradictions/internally consistent
To cast doubt on his account? I think it would be irrational not to use these criteria in weighing his claim.
Not sure if you were asked before, but could you comment on Matt. 27; 62-64. This is the only gospel that mentions guards being dispatched to thwart a possible grave robbing hoax that could possibly be perpetrated by the followers of Jesus. This takes place a day after he is been placed in the tomb. The other gospels have the Sabbath as reason for not finishing the burial process. So realistically, Jesus corpse was left unattended for a period of time before the guards were ordered to sit watch for 3 days. Would this not be the most plausible scenario in a historic sense? The hoax was expected, but the guards missed the act by a day? And that’s how the tomb became empty,probably? So I guess that’s a two part question. The first is this plausible as a historic explanation of the empty tomb? The second question, is it significant that this story is only found in Matthew 27; 62-64 and not in the other three gospels. Ha ha…three questions…is this story considered from an M source? or Q?
The most plausible scenario, by a very wide margin, is that there was no guard at all. Romans crucified people all the time. They never placed guards at the tombs. The story presupposes the idea that Romans were afraid that people would claim, falsely, that he was raised from the dead, and took measures to protect themselves from that claim. But that’s completely implausible. No one had any idea at *all* that later followers would claim Jesus was raised. This is a story written not in light of what happened to Jesus, but in light of Christian claims made later.