Loading...Last week I finished a thread on the criteria scholars use to establish what happened in the life of the historical Jesus. That series of posts raises an important question: what do historians do about the fact that throughout the Gospels Jesus does lots of miracles — and at the end the greatest miracle of all happens, he is raised from the dead as an immortal being, never to die again? Can such miracles be demonstrated to have happened historically?
That’s a question I’ve dealt with on the blog before. Here is the first of a series of posts I made on it from five years ago, in which I make a point about “history” that many people maybe haven’t thought of.
************************************************************************************************
Yesterday I started to answer a question from a reader who pointed out that just as the existence of Jesus is multiply attested, so too is Jesus’ resurrection. And so if *one* is established as historical, doesn’t the other one *also* have to be seen as historical? And if one is considered non-historical, doesn’t that show that the other is probably also non-historical?
These are great questions, but I think the answer to both of them is “no.” Yesterday I showed why multiple attestation strongly supports the existence of Jesus. Some readers objected to that, but I should reiterate – this is simply a common sense principle that all of us use every day to decide if something happened (say, what happened at lunch yesterday). Today I want to show why multiple attestation can *not* be used to support the resurrection of Jesus.
I begin by pointing out something that hasn’t occurred to a lot of people, but is nonetheless a fundamental point. History is not the past.
This may come as a surprise, but here’s the deal. The “past” is everything that has happened before now. “History” is what we can establish – in one way or another – as having happened before now. Trillions and trillions of things have happened before this moment. They are all in the past. But historians do not have access to far more than 99.99% of those things. What historians have access to is what we call history – things that we can show probably happened.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
Bart, on matters historical: could/would you recommend something (preferably a book) on church history? I expect you’ve come across some good ones in your time. Thank you!
I’m afraid I haven’t kept up with broad general histories of Christianity. Maybe someone else on the blog can suggest something?
If you are in for the long haul, “Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years” by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
1200 pages
Ah, of course — I should have thought of that. Great suggestion.
Dr. Ehrman,
Related to your entry above, I would like to ask how the historians take the message “between the lines” ? As an example (which I’m currently puzzled with), I would like to take the atonement in the synoptics.
I have read your entry about the writer of Luke-Acts, who obviously did not believe in atonement in the cross. But if you study the other gospels, you can also clearly see that the disciples did not understand the trial or death of Jesus as a good thing. Thus, it is obvious to me that none of the disciples were aware that the death of Jesus was necessary for their own salvation or eternal life. On the contrary, their acts show that they were purely devastated by Jesus’ death.
As a conclusion, I say that Jesus himself never taught he would die for the sins of the world and achieve atonement through the cross – also for the diciples.
To a historian, is this conclusion based on sound principles or not ?
There is a difference — this can be hard to grasp sometimes — between what the characters in story perceive and what the author is trying to get the readers to perceive. In the Gospel stories of Mark, the disciples never do “get it.” But the reader who is attentive does.
“…history – things that we can show probably happened.”
You’ve used this definition or one like it many times, always catches my attention. Reading it this time, an illustrative example popped into my head that helped me grasp the meaning and implications of this definition.
As you probably know, Samuel Pepys was a diarist in the 1660s who wrote in code and never expected his diaries to be read by anybody, They were discovered and deciphered a couple hundred years later. Here is how I look at them in probabilistic spectrum, most probable to less probable, historically:
1. diaries were written (100% — we have them)
2. Pepys existed and held his role in the admiralty (multiply attested)
3. they were written in 1660s, and not later forgeries (very very high, I assume they have been physically tested)
4. Pepys wrote them (pretty darn high, based on content)
5. They concern the exact dates he conveys (almost as high, but he sometimes writes a whole week or so after the fact, so…)
6. they are truth as Pepys knew it (he never thought they’d be read by anyone but himself (coded) and many instances the criteria of inconvenience or whatever you call it — often self-critical and relates embarrasssments and failings as well as triumphs
7. They accurately describe events (almost as high, except colored by memory, emphasis, interpretation by writer)
8. He accurately and fully characterized other people he knew — Wm. Penn, Duke of York, Earl of Sandwich (I think humans are notorious for not seeing others fully and clearly, and of course he did not know their inner minds)
9. Worth skipping these diaries (0%! they’re great!)
Was Jesus resurrection actually multiply attested, or rather, attested by one group who benefited directly from the attest? Were there any non-bias individuals who had attested to the resurrection? Were any of these testaments actually direct quote or all hearsay?
“multiple attestation” is a technical term that refers specifically to written sources of information that were not in collaboration with one another. If John had not read Mark, then the two are independent sources.
Interesting how the members of the various religions believe so devoutly in the miracle stories described by their religions, but deny with equal intensity the miracle stories of the other religions.
What if someone actually had a youtube video demonstrating that someone who had died was now raised from the dead? Would this move the event into the historical? If not, is there any evidence of such an event that would make it considered to be historical?
Sure. You will note that no such thing exists, and for a reason! That’s pretty much the point.
When ‘doing history’ do we always have to have presuppositions such that certain possibilities are ruled out in advance? In your example of Martian intervention in WWII, if a ‘document’ were to be found which claimed that the Martian emperor, Zog, sided with the Allies and this was ‘written’ on a medium impossible to produce on earth and there was evidence of a missile strike with a weapon not known on earth, would this not lead to the development of an hypothesis which did not depend on whether the investigator already believed in Martians or not?
It’s a matter of probabilities, as always in history. THere are far more probable explanations (FAR more) than the martian hypothesis.
Present-day historians are in a bit of an odd position. The Church earlier held the political power and did not allow the questioning of their supreme authority or of sidestepping it in regard to spiritual information. Only Church authorities could intercede between angels and man.
With this history, historians continue to honor the Church requirements, yet are bold enough today to question biblical integrity (but without consideration for the taboo heavens bodies and inhabitants).
This leaves you in a spot where you must doubt the existence of angels and yet analyze the historical accuracy of a book that is all about angels. It seems time to put this to bed; either the Bible is founded upon angelic beings and other worldly miracles or it is mythological, a companion of Greek Mythology; a book of fiction perhaps with a backdrop of true events, as many novels written today are.
To consider the former (angels may very well be real) moves historians in with metaphysical science, our world with its real events and true stories being essentially mythology — stories imagined in the mind and materialized in what we call the “physical world”.
Historians will one-day have to independently make up their minds as to which path to pursue: Christianity being mythology, or otherwise the world a mental construct, where “facts” are actually offshoots of the myths we act out in a three-dimensional spatial environment composed of *mind* alone.
From Denzel Washington in Training Day – “It’s Not What You Know, It’s What You Can Prove…” With regards to the Book of Mormon plates which had the appearance of gold, it sure would have made things easier if Moroni had just left them here instead of whisking them off to heaven with him. Upon reflecting on recent blog topics I’ve wondered how cool it would be to find a first-century gospel with the word, “original” in big, bold letters right at the top. But history rarely gives us these things. And even that couldn’t be proven.
Another quick reflection. As a schoolboy, I sometimes heard someone being accused of eating someone else’s candy or breaking something absent of an eyewitness. While I didn’t appreciate this defense at the time, I’ve grown to realize it’s actually pretty hard to refute. “You don’t know, you weren’t there.”
hello Dr Bart
if christians insist that resurrection was historical event , why do you think the jewish historian josephus said nothing about it . it just does not make sense not to mention this extraordinary event. Have you ever thought about it ?
Many thanks
Yes, I have thought about Josephus’s knowledge of early Christianity. 🙂 Actually his statement *does* indicate that Jesus was raised from the dead. Most scholars are confident those were not his actual words, though, but were added to his text by a Christian scribe.
Dr. Ehrman,
Would a better historical conclusion be that the people came to believe or think that they witnessed Jesus perform miracles? Multiple attestation could at least show this correct?
Thanks
Yes, that’s my view.
Do you think that Jesus had a reputation in his lifetime as an exorcist and faith healer?
I”m not sure, but I *suspect* so.
Great article Bart! I do think that it is important that people know and understand what is the past and what is verifiable history.
However, in debating my more Fundamentalist friends, a couple of the arguments presented are that scholars would be more amiable towards miracles and the resurrection if they didn’t have an a priori comittment against the supernatural or an a priori commitment to materialism. To my understanding the ability to verify miracles or the resurrection do not meet the criteria for historical verification no matter if one has an a priori commitment to materialism or an a priori comittment against the supernatural or not. Supporting a belief in the supernatural does change the historical criteria for verification. In other words, miracles and the resurrection don’t suddenly meet the criteria for verification simply because you have a belief in miracles and the resurrection.
Another argument for the resurrection is the change in the lives of the disciples. The NT shows them reacting in fear and shame and going into hiding at the crucifixion of Jesus and after the resurrection they were preaching boldly. Do these behaviors of the disciples meet any historical criteria for verification? If not why?
Thanks!
Doing history is always a matter of figuring out what is probable. Even those who believe in miracles admit they rarely happen. Other things happen a lot. Those other things are always more probable therefore. As to the change of people’s lives, of course peoples lives are massively changed by Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, etc. etc. as well. So what does it prove, one might ask….
“Believing that Jesus was raised from the dead (even if it did happen in the past) is a matter of faith, not historical demonstration.” B
And you believe that this type of “history” is a legitimate form of investigating the events which took place in the past? Why?
“Because history can only be done on the basis of shared presuppositions about our world and the past, and Christian beliefs are not among those shared presuppositions.” B
Which historians do not share those presuppositions? The majority? Do “historians” belong to a specific academic group or organization? Are they polled? Regularly? Are two thirds or a majority necessary to change the rules? How many historians must accept the possibility that God exists and may intervene in history in order to overrule and update the restrictions governing this discipline?
“To establish something as historically probable, you have to play the game of history following the rules” B
Something may be improbable, but absolutely true, and it automatically fails the “history” test. It is not “historical.” You describe this discipline as a “game.” It is not the relentless pursuit of truth wherever it leads.
“No historian will be taken seriously who makes historical claims that require views of reality not widely shared among other historians.” B
“Roughly seven-in-ten (72%) Americans say they believe in heaven-” Pew 2014
“58% of U.S. adults also believe in hell” Pew 2014
“Widening the scope to the supernatural, 65% of Americans told Pew they believe in the supernatural — reincarnation, spiritual energy, yoga as spiritual practice, the “evil eye,” astrology, connecting with the dead, consulting a psychic or experiencing a ghostly encounter. And 49% say they’ve had ‘a religious or mystical experience.'” USA OCT. 27, 2017
From what I gather historians will deny history based upon their arbitrary rules that are self-imposed, regardless what the factual events from the past may be. Anything/everything possibly pertaining to the “divine” is excluded off the top. Historians with as much education, training, diligence and intelligence who accept the possibility that there may be a God and He may interact with history, will likely discover valid historical information that differs radically from that of secular historians that Christ might be God.
If you’re asking which historians do not use miracle to explain historical events, I’d say all of them (except for fundamentalist Christians).
20 % of americans believe in bigfoot
over 50% of americans believe that houses can be haunted by evil spirits
Just because most people are superstitious does not mean that these superstitious beliefs are validated. I’m sure that’s some kind of logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/24/study-democrats-are-more-likely-than-republicans-to-believe-in-fortune-telling-astrology-and-ghosts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f88d910ede46
This answers a question I had from one of your debates with someone who says Jesus was just a myth (can’t remember his name). You argued that Jesus was a real person because of the attestations about him from multiple sources. I questioned then why you didn’t believe the miracles attested from multiple sources. It all makes sense now. Anyway, I’m kind of on your side of the fence questioning what Jesus really said and who he really was, but I personally believe in a “God” whoever he is. As a amateur critical historian, the only thing that makes sense to me is nothingless. I don’t have to explain evolution or where matter came from because there never was anything. That really makes sense to me. How would something come into existence from nothing? Wouldn’t historians agree with my conclusion? That would have to be a miracle, right? Yet, here we are, a possible real miracle,…..and…… if we are here, then why not a real God? The ONLY OTHER possible choice is that matter has always existed. (Which also defies explanation) Again, then, why not a God that has always existed? It makes about as much sense as matter always existing…. So, I can’t remember but, do you consider yourself atheist about the existence of a God, or agnostic?
I don’t believe there is a god, and so I’m an atheist. On the other hand, I don’t really know if I’m right, so I’m an agnostic. 🙂
Ha ha! That’s a pretty slick answer, Prof. Ehrman…..
It seems to me that you are making a circular argument.
The reason rational people don’t ‘pre-suppose’ that there are intelligent Martians who occasionally intervene in human affairs is precisely because there is no dependable evidence to suggest it.
Likewise, the reason historians don’t pre-suppose the resurrection is because there is no dependable evidence supporting it.
Are you saying that there is no conceivable historical documentation that could possibly serve as ‘historical evidence’? I don’t believe in ANYTHING supernatural, and yet I can conceive of lots of potential types of evidence that would force me to reconsider; for example, contemporary official Roman records documenting that a Jew was crucified and buried but that the body was, in fact, lost.
Is such a record likely? Of course not, but the absence of ANY record, ‘official’ or otherwise, is an argument against the Resurrection. If it had happened, it seems there would have been some contemporary extra-biblical reference.
Yes, it is somewhat circular. That has to do with the issue of “probability.” The reason the Martian hypothesis doesn’t work for historicans is becasue there is nothing to suggest it is at all likely/probable (or even possible), whereas Allied strategy is completely plausible.
I find the term “extra-biblical” sort of arbitrary. For example, wouldn’t some of the writers of the NT consider their writings not biblical, that is, on par with the “holy scriptures”? Is it really their fault that “someone” stuck their writings in a book called the bible? What would be your opinion of the supposedly extra-biblical reference to Christ in Josephus? Do you believe that is a legitimate reference to Jesus?
Yes, it is definitely a term used from *our* perspective as those who have a canon. My sense is that *none* of the writers thought they were writing Scripture.
“And – here’s where “evidence” for the resurrection of Jesus comes into play – you cannot presuppose perspectives on the world or on reality that are not widely shared among other historians investigating the same phenomenon.”
Wouldn’t historians who investigate the same phenomenon (the resurrection) be mainly Christians anyway? Their presuppositions on reality are then shared.
With this approach, it seems to only work if most historians are skeptics. But who gets to decide what historians’ perspectives are about the world and its reality in the first place? From a global standpoint, regardless of religious background, most people believe we have souls that can survive death. With that in mind, establishing the resurrection historically doesn’t seem to be the issue, it’s belief about whether or not it happened that’s the main issue. Otherwise, I would think that the current historical approach concerning the resurrection is being investigated as a hard science rather than what can be established historically. (I’m okay with that approach, but I’ve never heard anyone claim it.)
Maybe it’s significant to know what is being specifically investigated. Is it something concise like —Jesus can be shown to have been raised from the dead—or does it require tying in other things like there’s a God who specially favored Jesus because he pleased God, so God raised him from the dead, and now he lives eternally, etc… That requires many more presuppositions.
I get that believing in the resurrection requires faith. Still, if a historian is disinterested and dispassionate about the resurrection, why can’t it be shown historically? Especially since most people, including historians, presuppose the belief in life after death anyway. The results shouldn’t matter. I can also see how this current method would appear to some, especially Christians, that the *true* reasoning behind shying away from establishing the resurrection as historical is because the results create discomfort, not among the vast majority of the world, but among skeptics. And that’s because in their heart of hearts, they’re really not disinterested after all; the results are *wrong* and could lead people to believe that the supernatural exists when they *know* it doesn’t. It’s like a clever way to escape the results of historical inquiry.
I’m not saying that’s the case, but I can see why certain historical methods draw criticism.
Yes that’s right — fundamentalist Christians make arguments (even about history) that make sense mainly to fundamentalist Christians. Everyone else denies the historical validity of that kind of argument.
I didn’t articulate my last comment very well. In a previous post, you mentioned that historians debate what criterion to use when establishing what actually happened. Are you talking about biblical historians only or biblical historians which also include those from cross disciplines? How is it decided what methods are used and are they standardized?
All historians have to wrestle with how to evaluate evidence for the past.
First, we note in this passage that the Passover proper is on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan. However, this day of the Passover is then followed by the feast of the Passover which is a seven day period of sacrifices and feasting beginning on the fifteenth of Nisan. We can also see in this passage that only unleavened bread was to be eaten during the seven days of the Passover feast.
When we compare Numbers 28 with Exodus 12, we learn further that the first Passover meal occurs on the evening of the fourteenth, and this first meal is also supposed to be eaten with unleavened bread. Thus the fourteenth is sometimes referred to as the first day of unleavened bread. Exodus 12:19 also tells us that, during the seven days of feasting beginning on the fifteenth of Nisan, the Jews were not only to eat unleavened bread, but they were also to have no leaven anywhere in their homes. Thus the seven days of feasting beginning on the fifteenth are sometimes referred to as the days of unleavened bread. The fact that the Jews were not allowed to have leaven in their houses during the week of feast days also explains why the fourteenth was referred to as the day of preparation. The evening of the fourteenth was spent in celebration of the Passover proper with a meal of lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread while the following day of the fourteenth was spent removing all leaven from the home in preparation for the Passover week.
Therefore, when John mentions in John 18:28 that the Jewish leaders did not want to defile themselves because they wanted to eat the Passover, he was referring to their desire to participate in the seven days of feasting which would begin that evening. When John writes in John 19:14 that it was the day of preparation, he was referring to the preparations conducted on the fourteenth in order to remove all traces of leaven from the homes of the Jews. And when Mark mentions in Mark 14:12 that the Last Supper was on the first day of unleavened bread, the day when the Passover was killed, he was referring to the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan.
Both John and Mark are correct.
So you just copied and pasted this entire comment from the following apologetics website:
http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/bible-contradiction-did-jesus-die-before-or-after-the-passover
You did not provide a citation or give any other indication that you were using someone else’s words. This is called plagiarism and it is considered a form of dishonesty.
Yes, let’s try to make our own comments, unless we give attribution.
Since I was voted off the island several weeks ago, I use opportunities to comment on this forum judiciously, counting and choosing every word carefully. I have posted most of my comments on the unmoderated forum. Find The Increasing Learning Blog attributed there.
Though very, very, very, very close, I am not perfect, at least not yet. If you have doubts whether the comments are mine or someone else’s, assume they are other’s if they are well written.
But your vague implication is on target, my friend. I have many reasons to lie, to distort, to cheat, to steal, to bamboozle you guys. I make loads of cash every time I comment AND every time one of you converts to my religion. I get a gold Cadillac, too. So, I am highly motivated to do whatever I can to push my Christian Agenda. We’re always looking for more sales consultants if you enjoy working on commission.
Personally, had I been advising the forgerers, the scribes, and those other scallywags from 2K years ago, I would have played down the “payment for sins through the cross” angle with all the gore and blood-which doesn’t poll well with middle and upper middle income fathers (25 to 49) with 2.194 children per household with college degrees and focus instead on the natural products used to wipe His feet. Push the oil as a youth preserver and miracle elixir. Huge marketing potential.
Also in the “Unforum” find an explanation on:
“The Sequence of Christ’s Post-Resurrection Appearances
Where Exactly Did Jesus Appear, and to Whom?”
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell M.D. on March 21, 2012
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Furman University in 1980, graduating summa cum laude. She graduated from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville in 1984 and completed her residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Affiliated Hospitals in 1988. She earned board certification and fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
If you were voted off this island we wouldn’t be hearing you any more. (!) Everyone gets treated equally on this blog.
prestonp:
I doubt your failure to attribute stems from dishonesty but rather an oversight. IMO a more “Christian” response on your part would be an apology for the omission as opposed to a sarcastic screed, which is out of character for this blog.
Dr. Mitchell’s credentials are indeed impressive, and I’m sure some followers of Richard Carrier can boast similar CVs. I doubt however the latter would hold much sway with you. Also, Biblical Studies are not required for a BA in Chemistry nor are they part of a medical school curriculum or an OB/GYN residency.
As for Vanderbilt, you may want to look up Dr.Jill Levine’s (?sp) (Biblical professor at Vandy) views on the historicity of some of the OTs characters and events.
Is it not also true that some historical facts require no specific attestation? One case that has occurred to me concerns Jesus and bodily functions. Nowhere, to my knowledge, is it attested that he ever had a bowel movement and some people probably think it irreverent even to entertain that thought. But having established the historical probability that he lived to adulthood, it requires no further evidence that he did all the things without which he could not have done so, without regular miraculous interventions. By the way, it is attested that he talked about bowel movements, so maybe that is evidence that he knew the experience first hand.
Great post. Speaking of matters of faith, here’s a quote I found attributed to Thomas Aquinas: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
is it a widely shared perspective of historians of first century Judea that people had hallucinations of dead people being alive?
Sure — just like today!
maybe i should have been more explicit
is it a widely shared perspective of historians of first century Judea that people had hallucinations of dead people being alive, and continued to believe that person to be alive (for like 25-30 years in the case of Paul) ?
No, I don’t know of any analogous case. Then again I don’t know of any analogous case to a Jewish religion becoming the religoin of the West….
Paul thought a “dead” person was “alive” . why would the perspective that he had a hallucination be a better perspective than he had a “vision” (whatever a “vision” means)?
I take hallucinations to be a kind of vision.
“These presuppositions include: that there is a God, that he sometimes intervenes in this world, that Jesus was uniquely pleasing to this God, that God suspended the natural order to make Jesus come back to life, that Jesus then became immortal, that Jesus now dwells with God as an immortal being. That all may be true – but you can’t establish it through the historical disciplines — no matter *how* multiply attested it is.”
Well now you are exorcising a criterion which is exponentially better than any other criterion you have mentioned here, The Impossible. We can be certain that the impossible did not happen. Even you on occasion confess that impossible claims are the least likely. Strangely though in comparison, on occasion you claim that some things about Jesus are fact/certainly historical, like his baptism by JtB. So let me put it to you like this, which is more likely:
1) Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
or
2) Jesus was not resurrected.
2 is more likely. You can imagine reasons someone wuld have invented stories of teh baptism.
Holy Cow
I quote Bart, “Because history can only be done on the basis of shared presuppositions about our world and the past, and Christian beliefs are not among those shared presuppositions.” B
Then, I present him with evidence that the majority of Americans believe in a spiritual world.
“Bart July 31, 2018
If you’re asking which historians do not use miracle to explain historical events, I’d say all of them (except for fundamentalist Christians).”
Had nothing to do with my posted comment/question.
“HawksJ
Are you saying that there is no conceivable historical documentation that could possibly serve as ‘historical evidence’?”
“Bart July 31, 2018
Yes, it is somewhat circular. That has to do with the issue of “probability.” The reason the Martian hypothesis doesn’t work for historicans is becasue there is nothing to suggest it is at all likely/probable (or even possible), whereas Allied strategy is completely plausible.”
Where is the answer?
“Pattycake1974 July 31, 2018
“’And – here’s where “evidence” for the resurrection of Jesus comes into play – you cannot presuppose perspectives on the world or on reality that are not widely shared among other historians investigating the same phenomenon.'” patty is quoting Bart here.
Then, she asks him, “Wouldn’t historians who investigate the same phenomenon (the resurrection) be mainly Christians anyway? Their presuppositions on reality are then shared…
With this approach, it seems to only work if most historians are skeptics. But who gets to decide what historians’ perspectives are about the world and its reality in the first place? I’m not saying that’s the case, but I can see why certain historical methods draw criticism.”
“Bart July 31, 2018
Yes that’s right — fundamentalist Christians make arguments (even about history) that make sense mainly to fundamentalist Christians. Everyone else denies the historical validity of that kind of argument.”
His “answer” does not address her arguments or her questions.
“Both John and Mark are correct.” guess who?
I demonstrated why the resurrection accounts are not contradictory. Bart doesn’t respond.
tompicard July 31, 2018
is it a widely shared perspective of historians of first century Judea that people had hallucinations of dead people being alive?
“Bart July 31, 2018
Sure — just like today!”
Bart doesn’t answer the question
I”m not talking about presuppositions held by the population at large, but about presuppositions held among professional historians who do history. Surely you see the difference.
The presuppositions biblical historians share has piqued my curiosity to know what they are and where they come from. From what I understand, biblical criticism is partially rooted in rationalism. Questioning the Bible as authoritative stemmed finding contradictions and inconsistencies within it.
I think it’s important to know exactly what rationalism is—
a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
Philosophy: the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.
Theology: the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.
Basically, (I hope this isn’t offensive!) biblical criticism is like a computer output of factual information. This type of approach has a double-edged sword in my opinion. I definitely want the facts and enjoy learning about the historical part of the Bible, but it’s not a book of rationalistic thinking. It’s an experience-based book, so I see the critical approach as partially flawed. As Henritette has pointed out, some people think the work of historians gives us an ultimate truth about our reality. That would only be true if we were emotionless robots.
>> That would only be true if we were emotionless robots.
Only!?
May there be emotional homo sapiens that accept rigourous rational, logical, and reasoned arguments and conclusions as the best means–not necessarily the only means–by which to develop a shared and workable understanding of the world about us?
And, I’ll opine that our historians serve us best–arguably so–when they maintain that rigour in providing us with “computer[-like] output of factual information.”
I’m with William: “belief in God is a matter of faith rather than knowledge.”
“And, I’ll opine that our historians serve us best–arguably so–when they maintain that rigour in providing us with “computer[-like] output of factual information.””
I asked my computer today—Who crucified Jesus? Google answer: Pontius Pilate, Wikipedia. Historian: Pontius Pilate.
Was Jesus Jewish? Google answer: Born, lived, and died as a Jew, PBS. Historian: Yes, Jesus was Jewish.
Did Jesus raise from the dead? Google: various answers; Historian—People claimed Jesus resurrected from the dead.
Siri: Is there a God? Answer: I’m afraid I can’t answer that. Historian—We can’t answer that.
I said that some people mistake the work of historians as ultimate truth to our reality—
“May there be emotional Homo sapiens that accept rigourous rational, logical, and reasoned arguments and conclusions as the best means–not necessarily the only means–by which to develop a shared and workable understanding of the world about us?….I’m with William: “belief in God is a matter of faith rather than knowledge.””
You proved my point actually. Historians do not claim to tell you anything about the existence of God, whether miracles occur, or if Jesus rose from the dead. As Henriette stated, historians do not possess an instrument to test whether the resurrection happened or whether the miracles occurred; She also noted the field is unable to prove anything above our CURRENT scientific knowledge.
I place the work of historians above and beyond what any computer can tell me, and I enjoy learning everything they share from their work, but I do not rely on it to give me truth about the nature of reality.
I would have agreed with you probably a few years ago. That History is what is provable with documents and not simply what has happened in the past. My mind is swollen with fake news and what we witness playing out right in front of our eyes daily with the vast connectivity of info that has never been available to ANY other society before. I believe history is the past and that there is TRUE history and false History. We have today documentation capabilities that no other generation has ever had and we cannot even be sure who had a server in their bath tub and can’t even find 30k emails. We do not even know very recent and WELL documented activities, notwithstanding the redactions. History is either just good history or bad. I have used similar to your “what was for lunch in 1954” many times in discussions. If ONLY luck determines if we have a printed receipt transaction for that day, it is only that… “Luck” So even as we might agree on that “Provable History” is all we can count on, today’s news tells us that what is written is usually what someone wanted written for unverifiable reasons. According to your definition, what do you do with supposed history that is false, but well documented? History is history whether retold correctly (truthfully) or not. What we have is either garbage data or accurate data and it might be harder today, with an abundance of supporting documentation, to say something actually happened last week, much less so the farther back into technology we go. Today we also have a bad case of precedent. Believing that just because something was written down ahead of this point in time, some new kind of law now exists. And what to say about pictures? Your job, should you choose to accept is to swim through ages of texts in multiple languages when a true miracle could simply be a photograph from before camera’s were invented. (no comments on photon actions on the Turin Shroud; a miracle would be high resolution.)
I see your Multiple attestations is the answer to my well documented, but false histories, but it was just rhetorical.
Exactly why I rejoined! One little sentence: “History is not the past” and I’m away! Thinking (and also thinking after a forehead slap: “of course!”). Thanks!
Your granpa’s lunch: Every now and then a surprise can pop up and suddenly you DO know what he had for lunch that day in 1954. I recently found some old diaries of my late wife’s while she was young in Cape Town and I actually now know (“know” at the least) what she had for supper one night back in the 80’s (I could look up the exact date) as she had friends to dinner and wrote exactly what hor douvre and main and sweet she had made for them that night!
A tiny bit of “the past” became “family history” before my eyes! Thanks again.
Yup, I’m not saying it would be impossible to know. But, well, we don’t have a diary in this case….
Dr Ehrman –
re: “Believing that Jesus was raised from the dead (even if it did happen in the past) is a matter of faith, not historical demonstration. Because history can only be done on the basis of shared presuppositions about our world and the past, and Christian beliefs are not among those shared presuppositions. ”
Jesus’ resurrection didn’t have to turn into a “belief” – and certainly not a “religion” – at all. Jesus’ resurrection was an *event*. “Christianity” is an understanding or interpretation of that *event*. An historian can fully disregard any “religious interpretation” of the event, in attempting to determine whether it really happened or not.
Let’s say there was no Jesus, no resurrection story arising out of Judea 2000 years ago, and hence, nobody called “Christian” these days. Let’s say, rather, that 175 years ago, there was the strange story of Bob the railway worker, who died when he fell off a railway bridge, laid in the morgue for four days, then suddenly came back to life in this strange “form” that allowed him to appear and disappear, walk through walls, whatever. And, LOTS of people saw this “resurrected Bob”, and it was totally freaky, and, it was in the Boulder Times, the Flatbush Express, and all the other papers. Then, Bob just disappears, and is never seen again.
But, Bob was a heavy drinker, a guy who cheated on his wife, a guy who gambled himself into poverty. Nobody makes a “religion” out of this, It was just one, freaking weird, unexplicable phenomenon that happened. But, it wasn’t a religion, still isn’t a religion.
Historians these days, looking at the Strange Case of the Resurrected Bob couldn’t discount the well-publicized stories of 200 years ago because of “presuppositions” about anything.
And, neither should they bring up the “it’s a religious belief” nonsense when looking into the story of an event that many said happened 2000 years ago.
To me, using that “it’s a religious belief” thing is just Yet Another Expression of Bias. After all, the *event* of Jesus’could actually have happened, could have been a story widely spread, and yet never turned into a “religious thing” at all, in which case, historians would be compelled to at least give the story a proper inquiry.
DR EHRMAN:
I’m understanding that according to “history” we can NOT know for certain that God raised Jesus from the dead nor that Jesus appeared to Paul and gave Paul the gospel that Paul preached.
I also understand that based on the “historical” words of Paul himself, we CAN know that Paul did exist and that Paul claims in his writings that Jesus appeared to him as Jesus appeared to the rest of the apostles, so that ME believing that Paul is telling the truth is mostly a matter of MY faith in Paul’s testimony.
I agree that I can’t prove “historically that God raised Jesus from the dead”, and I will add, that just as I can’t prove that an intelligent being we call God created the fruit trees, or that this God, also raised Jesus from the dead, and that Jesus appeared to Paul and to many others, neither can an atheist prove that God doesn’t exist based on his/her theory and faith.
My conclusion then is that at the end of our life, each one one of us will know for certain if God raised Jesus from the dead, and we will also know if this God also created the trees; and because it’s true that neither the believer nor the unbeliever can prove their belief, it’s a good thing that we have freedom of religion in the USA. and freedom from religion, if that your choice.
I think that there is evidence, (i.e, in the historical sources we have.) that God most likely did raise Jesus from the dead and that Paul, for one, is telling the truth.
Jesus is son of god. But why did he keep calling himself son of man, and quite often?
You’re good at asking the hardest questions. In the Gsopels the Son of Man refers to the cosmic judge mentioned first in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus did talk about that one. But I don’t think he personally considered himself the son of man; the sayings in which he identifies himself that way are later Christian theological understadnings of him, put on his lips. Long story I’m afraid!
At least you are admitting this is presupposition of a philosophical world view and has nothing to do with actual historical analysis. I think this is a fair and transparent approach.
In the past you seemed hesitant to admit that (and even seemed to even deny) it was a philosophical presupposition and that was the crux of the problem.
People with a different philosophical outlook won’t be bound by your presuppositions and will use the historical criteria, regardless of philosophical “presuppositions”, to determine if there is historical evidence of an event. To deny the validity of their historical analysis based on your own philosophical presuppositions would mean you a doing things a historian should not do namely:
“It is not acceptable to presuppose your conclusions. If you want to demonstrate that something happened, you need to mount a case based on evidence; you can’t argue it happened based on the assumption that it *did* happen.
Relatedly, you can’t presuppose that only the evidence that supports your view is valid and other evidence is invalid.”
So if someone did a historical analysis and determined that historical evidence shows 1)person “P” Lived sometime before date D. 2) P died on date D and 3) P was alive at some date after D. It would not be ok for historians who reject miracles based on presupposition to say this evidence is “invalid.”
Of course many people will reject believing 1 2 and 3 on philosophical grounds. But at least they can look at the historical evidence for 1 2 and 3 and then decide if the philosophical issues they have with miracles outweigh the historical evidence.