The opposing argument is that we don’t know that there weren’t attempts to expose the lies; we only know that we don’t have them today.2 If that argument holds, then our defense of the miracles of Jesus is really just an argument from silence.
Does Christianity stand on that kind of shaky ground? I don’t think so.
First, I think we can safely say that any of Jesus’ miracles – even all of them – is disposable with one exception: the resurrection. That is the one miracle for which we do have an opposing story – see Matt 28:11-15. Why didn’t that story take? Because it's harder to believe than a mere miracle.
Second, even if we had no other evidence, an argument from silence for the resurrection is still strong because in the face of any reasonable alternative story the resurrection wouldn’t fly. Quite simply, if the resurrection didn’t happen, the body was still in the tomb. If the body was available, it would have been produced when Christianity got annoying – apparently within the first year or two. A religion built around a risen savior couldn’t fly in the presence of a body.
As I’ve written before, Christianity is based on a story no one would make up. If we don’t assume from the start that miracles are impossible, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty sturdy. And that’s good news because, as Paul said, “if Christ has not been raised… you are still in your sins” and “we are to be pitied more than all men.” But since He has been raised, then we too shall be raised, and we will be like Him, forever, to the glory of God.
--------------
(1) I like a good argument, and there are so few new ones from the skeptics, but it's always sad to come across unbelievers.
(2) The original is at an
24 comments:
I am glad I could surprise you.
I make no claim that my argument debunks Christianity as a whole. I propose it only as a response to the specific argument that apologists make that the miracles “were performed in public and so couldn’t be fabricated or people would have exposed the lies.” I am not arguing that Christianity rests in its entirety on an argument from silence. However, I would argue that the argument from silence as it is frequently invoked by apologists is indeed shaky ground.
Regarding the “stolen body” story, I would note that this story comes from Matthew who cannot really be considered an unbiased reporter when it comes to what skeptics might have been arguing. I would note that when Lee Strobel questions his experts about the arguments skeptics make, you really cannot rely on him to make those arguments in the same way that the skeptics themselves would make them. If you read the scholars that Strobel purports to answer, you would find that their positions are much different than they are portrayed in the “Case for” books. So when Matthew tells me what others had to say about the resurrection, I am not really prepared to accept that as a complete and accurate report of what the skeptics might have had to say.
It was the miracle of the loaves and fishes that inspired me to formulate my argument, but I am not convinced that the argument from silence deserves greater weight when it comes to the resurrection. It is my experience that people believe fantastic falsehoods all the time despite overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary. For example, many people fervently believe that the 911 attacks were engineered by the U.S. government. Many people believe that the Holocaust is a hoax. Many believe that the moon landings never happened. People have an amazing capacity for ignoring reasonable alternative stories. I don’t see any reason why early Christians could not have endured in their beliefs even if the skeptics had persuasive evidence that the resurrection had not occurred.
The other problem is that our earliest record of the empty tomb story is in the Gospel of Mark which is some thirty years after the event. It may be argued that the tradition of believers encountering the risen Christ dates to an early point, but Paul does not say anything about an empty tomb. If the empty tomb story was a later tradition, then there would have been no reason or opportunity to refute it in the early years when such a refutation might still have been possible.
Thanks for the comments. By the way, I do not consider myself anti-Christian. I consider myself anti-literalist.
Vinny,
I'm glad you stopped by. I know you don't make quite the grand claim I did. I drew your argument out a bit because, quite simply, Christianity stands or falls based on one particular miracle -- the resurrection.
Regarding the stolen body tale, I understand what you're saying. Unlike Strobel, though, Matthew isn't repeating the argument from a 450 page tome; it's pretty simple and seems easy enough to sum up.
As to the resurrection itself, it probably won't surprise you that I think Mark was probably written in the early to mid 50s at the latest, so he, and Matthew, are reasonably close to the events in question. And I've read a number of (conservative) scholars who think Mark's passion/resurrection narrative is a whole piece he got from somewhere else -- making it earlier still. And while Paul doesn't explicity state that the tomb was empty, I think it's implicit (see the comments of this post).
So we're back to a reasonably early bodily resurrection story, and we have to deal with the people who would know for sure whether Christ was raised dying for that claim.
"It is my experience that people believe fantastic falsehoods all the time despite overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary."
Yes, but this is different. One, the body of a "risen" man is a whole different calibre of evidence. Two, they had every reason to abandon Christianity if it didn't hold up especially in the earlist days when Jewish persecution was pretty strong (ala Acts 8).
Isn’t Paul responding to a dispute over whether the resurrection was bodily or spiritual? I think that indicates that the question was not yet settled at the time that he was writing. Since the empty tomb would be an important element in resolving this dispute, I think the fact that he does not explicitly mention it makes it hard to assume that it was part of his understanding of the events.
If the empty tomb story was a later development, then it may be that Jesus’ body was thrown into a common grave as would have been common with crucified criminals. In that case, no one would have had either the reason or the opportunity to go looking for a body to disprove the claims.
Vinny said:
Isn’t Paul responding to a dispute over whether the resurrection was bodily or spiritual?
The question was actually whether there was a resurrection (for believers, not Christ).
As to the "common grave" scenario, if crucifixion was as common as historians say, and if the common grave was really standard, people would have certainly taken notice of the claim that he received an honorable burial. I think this might be why the gospels go into so much detail about the burial.
Anyway, if Christ was put in a common grave, you'd expect some kind of mention of an alternative account in history, but what little we have (Talmud, Josephus) that discusses Jesus and His death makes no mention of controversy about burial. As a matter of fact, that's the only thing about which there is no contraversy until this century.
Sounds like another arugment from silence to me.
Given how little detail there is about Jesus in the Talmud or Josephus, I don't think there is any reason for them to know anything about what matters might once have been controversial in the early church.
There is a difference between an argument from silence and simply no evidence. I think this is the latter. We have sources that would reasonably be expected to mention something like that but do not. No it's not 100% certain, but it's highly likely.
If you push this far enough you end up making anything possible in the past. Perhaps Julius Ceasar was a woman dressed up as a man. No one says clearly that this isn't the case.
There is enough in history that relates on the resurrection of Christ, and it is important enough to Christianity, that if there were alternative stories in circulation I think it is reasonable to expect them to be mentioned. But nothing for the next few hundred years suggests that anything other than the canonical story took place.
I am not sure what distinction you are drawing between “an argument from silence” and “simply no evidence.” The argument I made (that inspired your original post) is that you cannot claim absence of rebuttal witnesses as evidence that a story is true unless several conditions are met: (1) there were in fact witnesses who had the necessary knowledge to rebut the story, (2) those witnesses had the opportunity to rebut the story when it was being told; and (3) we can satisfactorily establish that no such witnesses ever came forward.
Regarding (3), you state that “nothing for the next few hundred years suggests that anything other than the canonical story took place,” but I do not think that is accurate. As early as Paul’s letters, we have warnings against false teachers who preached some other gospel than Paul. We know of Marcion and the docetists who believed that Jesus was a pure spirit who only appeared to have a physical body and only appeared to die. This seems more than sufficient to raise the possibility of alternative stories.
Moreover, the absence of evidence of contrary accounts is just as easily explained by the fact that the canonical accounts prevailed. The early church did not make any attempt to preserve contrary accounts in order that later historians could compare them. In fact, it did its best to eradicate them. In the writings of the early church, we find many references to apocryphal works of which we have no copies today. I don’t see any reason to assume that the only contrary account is the one that Matthew mentions.
Regarding (1) and (2), they depend on the assumption that Mark’s empty tomb story was circulating from the very beginning. If the details developed over time, I don’t see any reason to believe that there would in be fact witnesses who were in a position to definitively prove that Jesus body was still in the grave at the time it would be necessary to do so in order to stop the development of the story.
You are correct that all history is subject to some uncertainty and the more ancient the history, the more uncertainty. However, your argument is based on any other explanation being so unlikely that the only reasonable explanation is that the resurrection accounts in the gospels are accurate. That, in itself, requires a degree of certainty that I do not think the evidence can support. There are any number of reasonable explanations for how the stories could have developed in the time before they were written down and the lack of evidence makes it impossible to eliminate those explanations.
From the story of Doubting Thomas, we know that the early church taught that believing in the resurrection without seeing the evidence was a positive virtue. I think that indifference to evidence undercuts any claim that the evidence must have been on the side of the resurrection in order for the early Christians to believe in it.
I really liked the debate- thanks. I would have to say that I tend to side more with vinny but I did want to post that Paul may not have cared to talk about the empty tomb story since his story- having a vision of Jesus on the road to Emmaeus- was his big focus. According to Acts, he tells that story a bunch of times with some minor changes here and there, for effect of course. I figure Paul really focused on what he experienced not what he had heard.
It is interesting how little Paul says about what Jesus said or did. That makes it very difficult to say with any certainty what events or stories he knew.
Vinny,
The "nothing for the next hundred years" refers to alternative burial stories. There are none which lends credence to the notion of an honorable burial which means that a body would have been available if the resurrection had not occurred.
Yes there were some who taught that Jesus did not have a physical body, but that, too, would leave no body in a grave. That's a story that could only have been floated if there were no body in Joseph's tomb.
I know we don't have a lot of data from that period, and it does seem to be true that the early church had no interest in preserving heresies (no surprise) which is why I mentioned Josephus and the Talmud. The Talmud does challenge some aspects of the story about Jesus, but it doesn't claim that His body was available or thrown in a mass grave.
As for Mark's story, it was at most 30 years from the events in question which the experts tell us is simply not enough time for significant legendary development (resurrection qualifies as "significant").
And though the Thomas story seems to suggest that believing without seeing is superior, the formula Paul uses in 1 Cor 15 is generally held to date from pretty close the events and clearly sees testimony about the post-resurrection appearances as an important element.
Dryheatfan,
Glad you dropped by!
I understand what you're saying, but I think the difference is that when Paul was asked to explain himself, he talked about his vision (though some have suggested it was more than just a vision) but when people questioned the resurrection (1 Cor 15), he took them to the evidence.
Both: As for Paul quoting Jesus, you'll notice that even those authors who claim to have first hand knowledge (Peter, John) don't really quote Jesus or say much about His life. Other than the gospels, the NT really is an extended commentary on the cross and resurrection. It seems odd, but from a theological standpoint, that is definitely primary.
I agree that the cross and resurrection were primary. I think that is a large part of the reason that some scholars think the empty tomb story could be a later tradition. The actual details of Jesus burial don’t seem to have any significance to the earliest preaching and teaching.
I don’t doubt that the resurrection is a very early tradition, but I think that I could find experts who would say that thirty years is plenty of time for significant developments in the story. When I think of how fast Mormonism grew after Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and translated from golden plates with magic seer stones, I would have to say that humans have a remarkable capacity for believing inherently unlikely stories without the slightest evidence or proof.
I would also have to note that Paul did not really “take” people to the evidence. He claimed that there were lots of unnamed witnesses still alive, but Corinth was 800 miles from Jerusalem. I don’t think that Paul felt that he needed to have his testimony confirmed by anyone or that this was an invitation to anyone to do so.
The actual details of Jesus burial don’t seem to have any significance to the earliest preaching and teaching.
Remember that the epistles were written to the church while the gospels have at least somewhat of an apologetic component. So we wouldn't expect the epistles to belabor the details of what every believer knew; they would get on to talk about what the important lesson was or what the whole thing meant.
I think that I could find experts who would say that thirty years is plenty of time for significant developments in the story.
Truthfully, you can find some "expert" to support just about anything. The majority seem to come in on the "not enough time" side, though.
As for Mormonism, I think the question is not how fast did it spread but how fast did it evolve (a subject I know nothing about, btw).
I would also have to note that Paul did not really “take” people to the evidence.
All of this is out of 1 Cor 15. Turn the page to 16:3, and Paul talks about how he will be sending a delegation from Corinth to Jerusalem. I cannot believe he, or anyone, would claim there are hundreds of living witnesses and then say he's sending them to their area if it were not true.
Remember that the epistles were written to the church while the gospels have at least somewhat of an apologetic component. So we wouldn't expect the epistles to belabor the details of what every believer knew; they would get on to talk about what the important lesson was or what the whole thing meant.
I agree. But by the same token, if there were conflicting stories about what happened to his body between the time he died and the time he appeared on the road to Emmaus or people simply did not know, there would be no reason to expect that Paul would have spent any time on it either. The death and resurrection were what mattered. I don’t think you cannot infer what everyone believed about a matter that Paul does not discuss.
Truthfully, you can find some "expert" to support just about anything. The majority seem to come in on the "not enough time" side, though.
I would be interested to know the basis for this conclusion. I have certainly not done a survey but I have read several books by authors with pretty good credentials who would not agree.
All of this is out of 1 Cor 15. Turn the page to16:3, and Paul talks about how he will be sending a delegation from Corinth to Jerusalem. I cannot believe he, or anyone, would claim there are hundreds of living witnesses and then say he's sending them to their area if it were not true.
Do you think that Paul independently confirmed the identity of the 500 witnesses when he received the story from whoever he received it from? I assume that Paul was sending the Corinthian delegation to believers he knew in Jerusalem, and I doubt that he would have been worried that they would challenge the stories or be told something different.
Vinny,
Picture an American in 1960. This guy bleeds red, white, and blue. He thinks capitalism was handed down by Jesus. He believes Canaan was the promised land only because it was too far to walk to the US. He believes that Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were various incarnations of the devil and/or the anti-Christ.
What would it take to make this man defect to the USSR?
I think you can make a parallel to most Jews in that era, but especially Paul. Paul wasn't "of Jewish decent;" he was a Pharisee -- people who saw themselves as keepers of the Law and guardians of holiness of both God and Israel. He would have been fiercely monotheistic and opposed to contact with "unclean things" and with gentiles in general. He hunted down Christians.
Then one day he made a complete 180. He taught that a crucified criminal was the Chosen One, that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding, and that gentiles were going to be a part of the Kingdom of God. He went from persecuting Christians to being willing to die for the name of Christ.
What would it take to cause such a transformation? Is that the kind of thing that would be done lightly? Would you blow off contradictory evidence, or would you make yourself absolutely sure you were right?
I don't know how much you know about Jews in that period, but, as I understand it, Paul was giving up everything. He was willing to be cut off from God's chosen people, his family, his nation, and the temple as well as giving up his own life. If he was convinced by the evidence, then the evidence was convincing to people in that day. And despite our modern arrogance, people then were not stupid. They didn't know a lot of things we know now, but they were pretty clear on the permanence of death.
You don't have to be convinced that they were correct, but let's not be mistaken about the fact that they, just like we would, were going to be sure about what they believed before they turned their lives upside down.
Actually, Paul seems to be a poor example for your argument. His belief was a product of his visionary experience, not any objective evidence that could be examined. As he explains in Galatians 1:11-20, he got his revelation directly from Jesus Christ. After he received it, he immediately started preaching to the Gentiles, and did not go to Jerusalem or meet with any of the other apostles for three years. It seems pretty clear that he was not concerned about finding objective evidence to confirm his vision.
Paul says he received his gospel from Christ, but that doesn't mean he never learned anything from a human. That passage in 1 Cor 15 that says he "received" what he was passing on is supposed to be a technical rabbinic term meaning that he was taught this (ala catechism) creedal formula.
I'm not saying that Paul went and interviewed 500 people, but even after seeing a vision of Christ, you would expect him to want to verify some of this. Paul himself taught that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2Cor 11:14). I have no doubt he checked out the evidence -- probably somewhat immediately and some later when he went back to Jerusalem.
But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:15-18
I might expect him to want to verify some details about Jesus before he turned his life upside down, but he seems to be very emphatic that he did not do so.
Vinny,
The passage you quote doesn't keep Paul from investigating the resurrection. It keeps him from going straight to Judea, but that's all.
I can't find the reference now, but a couple of days ago I read (in relation to all this) that the language of the passage you quote (or maybe a couple of verses later) actually implies (in Greek) a careful investigation. Sorry, I just don't have time to track it down again. I think it was William Lane Craig if you want to try.
While further looking into the matter, I ran across an article in which Gary Habermas says that the wording of verse 18 in Greek implies some sort of historical investigation, but the other verses seem to be pretty explicit about the source of his information being Jesus Christ himself rather than any man as he states in 1:11-12. I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. The fact that he preached to the gentiles for three years before meeting with Peter makes it hard for me to attach more weight to the implicit rather than the explicit.
I would also note his comments on his visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later in Galatians 2:6. As for those who seemed to be important—-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—-those men added nothing to my message. That sure does not sound to me like a man whose preaching was based on any historical investigation.
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Key word: gospel. He got his gospel by revelation. That does not mean he got nothing from humans. Once again I'll point out that the "what I received I passed on" in 1 Cor 15 is (according to those who know such things) a rabbic formula for something he was taught.
preached to the gentiles for three years before meeting with Peter
Peter is not the only person who knows about these things. When I say I would expect him to check this out (do you realize we're debating something I'm only inferring?), that doesn't mean he went to talk to all 500+ witnesses. It simply means he would probably have verified the facts he could with the people at hand.
Remember in Acts 8 it said the believers in Judea were scattered. Philip ended up in Caesarea. We don't know who went where, but we do know that the witnesses did not all stay in Jerusalem.
whatever they were makes no difference to me
Context. Paul's about to get into the problem of people allegedly from James saying that gentile believers must be circumcised. This is getting into the notion that no one's opinion is above the gospel. That does not mean that the eye witness testimony is unimportant.
During the three years before he went up to Jerusalem, I don’t doubt that Paul talked to people who had encountered Jesus during his earthly ministry and heard stories from them about what Jesus said and did. For that matter, during the time he was persecuting Christians, he may have questioned them enough to pick up some details about Jesus’ life. On the other hand, Paul’s purpose in Galatians seems to be pretty clearly to explain his dealings with the original apostles so I don’t think it reasonable to infer any meetings beyond those detailed there.
More importantly, I don’t see any basis for the use of the word “verify.” Galatians indicates that Paul had no doubts whatsoever about the content of the revelation he had received from Christ. He says that he did not consult, that he was not taught, and that other Christian leaders added nothing to his message. Paul may have been verifying that others had the gospel right, but not that he had it right.
As for what Paul received in 1 Corinthians 15, I will acknowledge that it sounds like the kind of thing he might have been told by other believers, however, Paul clearly states in Galatians that he did not receive the gospel from any man. Is there any reason that Christ could not have revealed the knowledge of those events to Paul directly?
Vinny,
Paul may have been verifying that others had the gospel right, but not that he had it right.
Paul says he "set before them the gospel that I preach ...for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain" (2:2). Sounds like he was verifying his gospel. Everyone has doubts every now and then.
Paul clearly states in Galatians that he did not receive the gospel from any man.
We've been over this before. "Gospel." A good summary of the gospel might be Eph 1:3-10 whereas what we're discussing is evidence like 1 Cor 15:3-8.
That is certainly one legitimate way to read Galatians 2:2, but I think there is an alternate reading as well. Perhaps Paul was concerned that the Church in Jerusalem was undoing the work he had accomplished by sending out missionaries who were teaching erroneous doctrine. Given how much confidence Paul expresses in his own understanding throughout the first two chapters of Galatians, that seems reasonable to me as well.
I think I understand the distinction you are drawing between the Gospel itself and evidence for the historicity of the events that the Gospel proclaims. However, when it comes to Paul, I am not sure that the distinction is meaningful. His experience of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus seems to encompass both at the same time. What he relates in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 he describes as “the gospel” in 15:1-2.
Regarding the majority of experts coming in on the "not enough time" side, I have posted some thoughts at http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html.
Post a Comment