Loading...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!!!
Say if the first century gospels we have and all the others that may have been written were unknown to us and no later manuscripts or quotations existed in the church fathers, and we only had the gospels you translate in your book “The Other Gospels.” If we applied the critiera historian use, what would we then say is historical. Silly question, I know. But it seems like we are trying to construct a person’s messsage and history as one would construct a cathedral by looking through a key hole.
Possibly. But you may want to look at attempts to pull it off and see what you think (like my book on jesus: apocalyptic prophet….)
I’ve read your book and have done grad work on the subject at the university of toronto. I certainly think Jesus existed and was likely an apocalyptic prophet. But I think though the diversity of thought in the NT itself, among early Christians, and among NT scholars themselves regarding what Jesus said and did shows that its not as clear cut as most think, and that our sources–written not by eye witnesses and based on oral tradition–do not and could not give a complete picture. The gospels contain some history, but history as you describe, as being able to demonstrate what likely happened in the past, is not possible to determine in most cases. I know I’m making alot of assumptions right now, but I think NT scholars put alot of faith in the gospels, even with all the historical criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, etc.
My above anology was a bad one, but with it I was trying to say is our sources are limited and we are missing a whole lot, and constructing the historical Jesus based on what we have is like trying to construct Jesus only on “the Other Gospels.” We’re likely missing alot.
I think it can be said in a more simple way. One cannot , in a scientific community, argue in favor of historical events that includes violations of very basic scientific assumptions. And in particular claims that involves supernatural suspension of very basic scientific assumptions. Therefore, what is claimed to be multiply and independently attested, has to be interpreted as natural phenomena. In this case, the resurrection events has to be interpreted as either visions (hallucinations/dreams or something similar) or claims of having experienced visions.
Well said.
Why is it important what happens in a Scientific community? History is not science is it? In your lectures on the historical Jesus you made it clear you thought they were very different.
If the idea is that supernatural events violate science that would be a philosophical belief. Lots of scientists reject that notion. Science studies what natural laws are but learning what they are does not mean you must believe they can not be broken by supernatural forces.
If you think belief in miracles is somehow unscientific and would offend a scientific community, then why not just admit it. You (and the current community of historians) have philosophical misgivings about miracles and therefore you want to exclude them. The debate can then properly move on to the philosophical arguments pro and con.
This idea of excluding viewpoints from the intellectual debate due to presuppositions is something I find very disturbing. I have another post that deals more directly with what you wrote. I really hope you will reconsider this view.
If you think that my view is that miracles can’t happen because they “violate science,” you’re not reading me closely enough. But if you do want to invoke “supernatural forces” as necessary for miracles — that’s perfectly fine. It may be true. But it is not something subject to historical demonstration. (Just as it is not subject to mathematical demonstration; or geological demonstration; or literary critical demonstration; or lots of other kinds of demonstration) It’s a theological claim — which is PERFECTLY FINE!!! But it’s not based on the study of historical events.
Dr. Ehrman said:
“If you think that my view is that miracles can’t happen because they “violate science,” you’re not reading me closely enough.”
I actually wasn’t responding to your words so much as what Gavriel said. He tried to sum up what you said by beginning:
“I think it can be said in a more simple way…” He then went on to claim that miracles violate natural laws that science investigates and tries to establish. Therefore they can’t be argued in a *scientific* community.
To which you responded “well said.”
Is what he said your view in a more simple way? Or is your position different than his? Because his view very clearly seems to be a claim that miracles are unscientific. This logic wouldn’t apply to history community because the purpose of history is not establish what natural laws are and how they work. Do you agree?
If you don’t think I understand your position perhaps you could help me out by answering some of the questions I ask.
I know you don’t have to, but you seem to be stating various arguments that as far as I can see do amount to philosophical arguments such as the one given by gavriel.
On the other hand you also say that you refuse to go outside the widely held presuppositions of historians. Since miracles are not widely presupposed by your community community of historians, they are basically taboo. This is not a philosophical argument. It’s more a statement of fact as to why you refuse to apply historical criteria to claimed miracle events. You want to be taken seriously by your peers and to due to their presuppositions you would risk that if you applied the criteria to miracle events.
Now you might say I am not stating your position(or Gavriel’s position) right. If so, I would genuinely appreciate it if you could put your finger on where you think I am going astray.
But regardless would you at least agree these are 2 very different types of positions? One deals with the concerns of the scientific community and one deals with the concerns of your peers in the history community.
If anyone else who think they understand Dr. Ehrmans position can chime in that would also be appreciated. I am cognizant of the fact that Dr. Ehrman has a huge blog filled with fantastic, and controversial topics, and he can’t spend all his time on this issue, just because its important me. But I have read plenty of people who have allot of the same issues I have. And frankly I haven’t heard anyone try to seriously defend these positions.
http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2006/12/bart-ehrman-on-history-and-miracles.html Here is another blog that takes issue with his approach. Notice that those who defend what they think is Dr. Ehrman’s position refer to Humes philosophical arguments. But Dr. Ehrman used to emphatically deny that he was employing a philosophical argument to exclude miracles from Historical consideration.
I think allot of people who don’t believe in miracles anyway just nod along and but obviously those who think miracle accounts provide *some* historical evidence for the existence of God (I fit in that category) are interested in taking a closer look at what he is saying.
I think this is something like the Sherlock Holmes formulation, that once you have eliminated the impossible you must accept what you are left with, however improbable.
Given your position, there is then no purpose in studying the Jesus event using any historical methods of studying as we might study the battle plans at Gettysburg since both Judaism and Christianity presuppose an infinite being and events which are beyond the natural events in history and cannot be verified as one would verify a physical event having taken place in physical space and time..
It seems that for historians there is no presupposition that includes the supernatural or a metaphysical dimension in history, and limits itself to only those events that can be verified as happening in the physical dimension.
If that is true, then Jesus was a fraud or deluded, those who saw the risen Christ were frauds or deluded, and Paul, who says he spoke with the risen spiritual Christ even before anything was written about the Jesus event, was then either a fraud or deluded.
So what is the point in wasting time studying New Testament history and texts since they can not be verified in what is most important: the supernatural, regardless how many witnesses there might be?
No, that’s not the implication at all. We can learn *lots* about Jesus without including claims of the miraculous in his life. I lay all that out in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet. (And just because someone has a different worldview from us doesn’t make them fraudulent or delusional!!)
Excellent post although I am still not convinced about the final argument. Couldn’t historians document something supernatural and extraordinary if it actually occurred? For example, what if, using your example, debris from a spaceship is found and we, then, using telescopes see a craft flying back to Mars? Extraordinary stuff, but documented? With regard to multiple attestation, I have wondered about the multiple attestations of the golden tablets of Mormonism the same way I have wondered about the multiple attestations of certain New Testament events. Multiple attestation does seem to have its limits. Does the context of the attestation make a difference? For example, if the source is filled with other unlikely events, a virgin birth and healing miracles, does that mean that the event described, in this case the Resurrection, is also likely to be unlikely?
On the same subject, more or less, check out the NPR website and read “Science Doesn’t Want to Take God Away From You” by Marcels Fleiser.
There’s nothing supernatural about an actual spaceship that is documented; if it is documented following the scientific method(s), then it simply means that there is intelligent life elsewhere and they’ve build spaceships. But to predicate a historical conclusion on the *assumption* that such is the case is not an acceptable way to do history.
Just like in with the virgin birth, a strong argument against the Resurrection is biology, and, generally speaking, the scientific method, which, in uncountable domains, provides evidence that it really describes observable reality (even if it is not directly observable, like atoms and electromagnetic waves). That’s why, just as there is not a 50% chance that the moon is made of cheese, given what we know about cheese and astronomy, there is not, a priori (even before the multiple attestation criterion is envisaged), a 50% chance that the Resurrection is part of the past, given what we know of biology. If it did happen, then no evidence-based method, no rational theory can explain it.
These are philosophical views. I think Professor Ehrman is trying to maintain that his objection is not a philosophical objection.
I’m basically in your corner, but just playing Devil’s Advocate for a moment: What if Jesus had made numerous, very dramatic public appearances after his supposed “resurrection”? If the historical record included witnesses to his death and burial, but also to his having later confronted the Sanhedrin, Pilate, even the Emperor, in the company of men who swore they’d seen him dead? What if the historical record told of further attempts to kill him – witnessed by, say, the Emperor and the Roman Senate – and he’d been proven invulnerable? Would modern historians have to agree that something very strange had happened, and the man evidently *had* been raised from the dead, even though they couldn’t “explain” it?
Whatever your answer to that, what would happen if such an event took place in our day – with modern photography, DNA testing, and so forth? Future historians would *have to* acknowledge it, wouldn’t they? (Again, without endorsing any particular “explanation.”)
Yes, at some point one would have to consider that Jesus had a near-death experience. But the reality is that we *don’t* have reports like this — about Jesus or any other great miracle in the past. And that’s probably not an accident.
A further thought…what about all those supposed appearances of the “Virgin Mary” to large groups, as recently as the 20th century? (I’m assuming there haven’t yet been any in the 21st.)
I’m assuming no one has ever produced convincing *photographs* of those appearances – if they had, I would have heard of it. Have there ever been “explanations” of the lack of photographs? Cameras supposedly not working – or no one’s having happened to have a camera handy?
What I’m thinking is that it will be very interesting to see whether those “appearances” of Mary cease completely in this century, when almost everyone is carrying a smartphone (with camera) everywhere!
Yes indeed — I deal with these in my book on How Jesus Became God!
Along these lines, I’ve also wondered if it’s documented that these group sightings of Virgin Mary involve only Catholics — that is, people who are much more pre-disposed to experience her “presence” to begin with, given their historical veneration of her, compared to Protestant denominations, who seldom if ever claim to have seen her. In like manner, the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances curiously limit them only to those individuals who were especially close to him during his ministry. So, by analogy, can we then put these sets of sightings in the same category of human experience? That is, some sort of ahistorical yet genuine visions? Is this more or less your view as well, Bart?
Likewise, when Paul says he experienced the risen Christ, long after the crucifixion-resurrection timeframe, the timing alone argues for an ahistorical vision as well. Indeed, when Paul, Peter, and James met in Jerusalem, they must have compared notes regarding the nature of their respective post-crucifixion Jesus “sightings”. And since these disciples seem to have accepted Paul’s vision or insight as genuine (the Greek ophthe characterizes the experience in his letters), then maybe that’s because it was *equivalent* to their own (here, ophthe is used once again, nominally implying said equivalence). Thus, the highly literalized accounts of physical Jesus sightings we get in the post-Pauline Gospels can be understood as simply these writers’ later narrative attempts to explain a genuine prior experience to their readers. Is this more or less your understanding, Bart?
Lastly, the rationalistic assumption that natural laws are never broken, or can never be, is just that… an assumption. Coming from the mouth of a scientist, this probably sounds like apologetic heresy, so please bear with me for a moment. This assumption is otherwise known as scientism, and it is a historical legacy of the Enlightenment. While we’ve all lived by this pretty-darned-good assumption, ever since, in our daily lives — and have gainfully embraced it in our careers — there’s still that little cautionary voice inside me that says: “Yes, but there may be more dimensions of reality than you can ever see.” Indeed, Einstein humbly thought in much that way about a Divine Intelligence behind Creation, which he could envision as being infinitely beyond his own (which of course was prodigious) — while also viewing our diverse religious dogmas, doctrines, and creeds as being inherently limited by the biological limitations of human intelligence. I tend to think Einstein was on the right track here, but I’d be happy to change my mind based on additional data that I’m failing to consider or that we don’t yet have.
Another very thought-provoking post, Bart. Thanks!
Thank you for this post Prof Ehrman. It is the best explanation I have ever read about the difference between the past and history. It also does a great job of explaining academic rigor. The parallels between the Historical process and the Scientific Method are striking because they are in fact the same. I will also tell you that my son is less than amused because he was the only one around so he had to deal with me making a brain dump on this post.
How would you address near death experiences where an individual believes that they were on the “other” side? Could that be used as evidence for the existence of heaven? For example, Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, writes of his experience in his book titled: “Proof of Heaven”.
I think we can explain them physiologically. The mind is an amazing thing that we haven’t figured out yet. But I don’t think we need to plug “God” into every hole in our knowledge, like the ancients did when they couldn’t figure out why it rained or didn’t, why someone got well again or didn’t, and so on….
“But what if “men from Mars” really *did* intervene in that way? Well, that would be part of the past, then, but it cannot be considered as part of history ”
Is it *possible* (and I mean *possible*) to make a historical statement about the resurrection of Christ? If not why do historians like yourself write about such subjects rather than, say, cake making?
Yup, I’ll get to what we *can* say tomorrow.
Good post. Lots to think about.
What about Troy? If I recall historians dismissed it as fable.
A long time ago I read The Meaning and Matter of History, by a Jesuit priest. His thesis was that history was concerned with replicable events (science again). History could not verify the miraculous.
The thing is, there is a lot of people out here who have had experiences that wouldn’t fit your definition of historical.
For that matter, if you tried to introduce modern scientific thought to a 19thC. physicist, he would think you were insane.
Marcus Borg says that there is more attestation that Jesus was a healer than any other historical character.
J.D. Crossan talks at great length about Jesus as a healer, though he focuses on the societal issues (great insights)
Yes, Troy — at least as described by Homer — is almost certainly legendary.
History is no longer about trying to decide what happened but instead it is trying to decide what happened in a way that fits the widely held presuppositions of historians. This is a sad statement about the community of historians.
There seems to be 2 different Professor Ehrman’s. One who thinks history is about finding out what occurred. This one sets forth the criteria he uses to come to his conclusions and uses logic along with those criteria to draw conclusions. I might not agree with him on everything but I know where he is coming from. I have tremendous respect for this Professor Ehrman.
Then there is the Professor Ehrman who refuses to use those criteria when he is afraid that the conclusions drawn will not fit the widely held presuppositions of historians. This professor talks about what he needs to do to be taken seriously by his peers. I’m sorry but the second way of thinking is not a valid intellectual activity. It is presupposition disguised as an intellectual pursuit.
Your examples are poorly designed. If several people saw strange creature who said they were from a different planet and these accounts were recorded then it would be the subject of proper historical analysis. People could choose not to believe the strange creatures came from outer space due to philosophical misgivings or scientific misgivings about the possibility, but this should not prevent the historian from applying his criteria. We would simply say yes there is historical evidence for the claim but we have philosophical and scientific problems with the claim. There would be nothing wrong with this and it would be clear where the objection lies. Scientists could address the scientific issues and philosophers could address the philosophical issues. Meanwhile historians could apply their criteria.
A claim might be historically well supported but have philosophical issues. But we shouldn’t try to match our historical analysis (or worse refuse to apply historical analysis at all) to our philosophical inclinations. That is just straight up admitting your analysis is tainted by biases that are reached through other disciplines and different forms of analysis.
Why aren’t miracles considered acceptable historical explanations of the past? Because they are not acceptable historical explanations of the past. This might be considered doing history in some communities but in philosophy it’s called begging the question.
“Multiple attestation is a criterion that gets applied to events that *are* acceptable as “historical” explanations of the past. It is inapplicable for events that are *not* acceptable as “historical” explanations.”
It is not historical because it is not accepted as historical. In short bias and presupposition rule the day.
Dr. Ehrman please take some time to consider this very carefully. Your position just seems to be getting worse and worse the more you try to explain and justify it. If you want to say you reject miracles on historical grounds then go through the criteria you claim to apply in doing historical analysis. Otherwise you are guilty of special pleading.
I’m afraid you’re simply not reading me carefully enough.
I think you are afraid I am reading what you say too carefully.
I am quoting you after all.
“You cannot presuppose perspectives on the world or on reality that are not widely shared among other historians investigating the same phenomenon.”
However, the presuppositions/biases widely shared by other historians investigating the same phenomenon is fair game. And recently the *presupposition* is miracles don’t happen. That’s the rule. So if you don’t play by that rule you can apply all the historical criteria you want, but you will still be ostracized. You will be ostracized for refusing to accept the biased presuppositions of our peers. So much for academic freedom.
Academic freedom refers to policies within universities that allow professors to teach whatever their research leads them to conclude without fear of being dismissed for it. But there are limits, of course. If an astronomer began to teach his classes that the moon was made out of green cheese, his credentials would seriously be looked into. Freedom does not mean anarchy.
“ If an astronomer began to teach his classes that the moon was made out of green cheese, his credentials would seriously be looked into.” but what if the moon were made of spare ribs, would you eat it? I know I would, heck I’d have seconds and polish it off with a tall, cool Budweiser.
Yeah, but it’s a long way to the restaurant….
Dr. Ehrman,
I was wondering if there are hard fast criteria/rules that historians use when trying to determine what actually happened? I’ve heard William Lane Craig say things like the following:
(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.
(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon one another nor upon a common source.
(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.
(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.
(5) Semitisms: Traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebraic linguistic forms.
(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.
Is this just Craig throwing bologna and using self-imposed criteria or is there any validity to what he is saying?
I am just curious to learn more about how historians actually go about trying to figure out what actually happened and if there is any “official method,” criteria, or gauge that is recongnized by all historians?
These aren’t hard and fast rules. They are guidlines that alow us to establish relatives of probability. He’s just reciting criteria that have been around for decades. Sme of them are better htan others.
Dr. Ehrman,
Are there are good books for lay persons about how historians generally try to establish what happened in the past?
There surely are! But I don’t know what they would be. Maybe someone on the blog can make a suggestion!
Dr. Erhman,
I’ve always found it fascinating that there are no writings about Jesus when he was alive. However, I was told by a Christian that this was common in antiquity (that people often didn’t write about people or events until years or decades later). Is this true? Or do we have evidence that people wrote about people and events during the lifetime of those people and events? If so, can you provide some counter examples?
We certainly have lots of writings about people at the time they were living (we have millions of personal letters, for example), and authors who talk about people living in their own day; and historians that describe persons and events that they knew and experienced first hand. But I’m not sure why that would matter? I’m not saying someone *should* have written about Jesus at the time. I’m just saying that since the sources are decades later that has to be taken into account when trying to assess their historical validity.