Was the Resurrection an illusion?
The other day, while driving on the freeway, I saw a large bird on the side of the road. It was just walking around ignoring the cars. As I got closer, I could see its little legs moving, and as I got closer still I saw that this was really a big bird – a turkey maybe. I didn’t think we had wild turkeys in this part of Texas, but this sure looked like one. I got closer still and saw that it was a plastic bag blowing in the wind.It happens to everyone – our eyes see something, and our brain tries to interpret it. Because we automatically try to place things in familiar categories, our brains occasionally place something in the wrong category – even supplying the necessary details, like little bird legs (which were probably just grass), to make the category work.
A more relevant example: I saw my grandmother more in the first couple of months after her death than I had in the previous few years. We were not even particularly close, but everywhere I went I saw her, at least for a split second, in someone else. It was obviously an illusion – a trick of my mind – and at no point did I actually think my grandmother had returned from the dead.
Given the tricks our minds can play on us, could the apostles and other “witnesses” to the resurrected Christ have been mistaken?
The first argument against this notion is that Christ’s post-resurrection appearance were made to many people at the same time. We can accept that a person can make such a mistake, but a dozen all at once? Five hundred (1Cor 15:6)?
The second argument against this objection is that the witnesses did not just see Jesus across a room. They spoke with Him, touched Him, ate with Him (e.g., Luke 24:36-43). An illusion doesn’t break bread for you (Luke 24:30).
The third problem with this theory is that if the apostles were mistaken about seeing the risen Jesus, His body was still in the tomb. If they ran around Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was alive and making a general nuisance of themselves (c.f., Acts 4:1-22), we would expect the authorities to produce that body and snap them out of their euphoria. This didn’t happen. The earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection (Matt 28:11-15) assumes an empty tomb.
It seems highly unlikely that the early Christians mistakenly believed they had seen a resurrected Christ. Were they perhaps lying? We’ll look at that next time.
Unfortunately, Paul is the only witness who personally reports having seen the risen Jesus himself and he does not tell us enough about his experience to determine whether it was anything more than a trick of the mind.
ReplyDeleteWe have no way to determine how many times removed the gospel accounts are from the original witnesses making it impossible to say how those stories might have been altered in transmission.
There is of course the possibility that the gospels contain first hand eyewitness accounts, but it is also possible that they contain stories that are removed from the original witnesses by as much as seventy years of uncontrolled telling and retelling. Given that, I don't see how you eliminate the possibility that the original experience was in fact some trick of the mind.
"Paul is the only witness who personally reports having seen the risen Jesus"
ReplyDeleteJohn (21:22-24)
Then there's Luke who comes across as delivering a very careful second hand account of the events in question.
"he does not tell us enough about his experience"
I'm not sure I agree. Reread the appropriate sections of Acts, and I think you'll see otherwise.
"We have no way to determine how many times removed the gospel accounts are from the original"
I think it's reasonable to think the gospels are from within a couple of decades of the events in question.
But 1 Cor 15:3-8 is definitely within 25 years or so, and the creed is at most within 20 years and more likely within 5-10.
The stories show no sign of being the kind of thing that could be a trick of the mind. I suppose you could claim that such signs were removed by later editors, but then we run into the question of how these people could be so ignorant as to believe these silly stories and so smart as to remove all the evidence that they're false.
I don’t think that it matters how many times I reread Acts. It still would not be Paul’s account of what he saw. It is someone else reporting what Paul saw. I am not aware of any criteria that enable me to distinguish between a second hand account of a first century miracle and a tenth hand account of a first century miracle. There are enough discrepancies between Paul’s description of his activities and what is recounted in Acts that I think I have to allow for the possibility that the author of Act was not particularly close to Paul.
ReplyDelete1 Cor. 15:3-8 certainly looks to be the earliest account of the resurrection, but it really doesn’t amount to much more than Paul saying that he saw something and that he believes that a lot of other people saw something, too. I don’t see how that provides enough information to determine that what he or what the other disciples saw is consistent with the accounts in the gospels and inconsistent with a trick of the mind. At best, it helps confirm when the belief in the appearances first arose.
It may be reasonable to think that the gospels are from within a couple decades of the events in question, but the fact that so many scholars place them later demonstrates that it is at least as reasonable to think that they were written three to six decades after the events.
Frankly, I think that there is a very wide range of dates in which it might be reasonable to think that the gospels were written. I would say it’s unreasonable to think they were written before Jesus death since they don’t purport to be prophecy. I would also say that it’s unreasonable to think that they were written after the point at which we find external references to them. That still leaves a range from about 33 A.D. to the first couple decades of the second century in which a reasonable argument could be made.
"that so many scholars place them later demonstrates that it is at least as reasonable to think that they were written three to six decades after the events."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. The question comes up why they date things late. Is it because if internal evidence, external evidence, or preconceived notions? The late daters rely heavily on the latter.
You can be radically skeptical of the gospel accounts if you want, but we have first or second hand accounts written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
Given that on those points where they can be verified they have shown to be reliable, and that they show every sign of trying to be honest with the accounts, I think we can we can be confident that the details they include -- e.g., the number of witnesses present, the eating of of solid objects -- can be useful to ask whether these people were suffering some kind of dilusion or were seeing something physical.
Some of the earliest traditions of the Church going back to Irenaeous place the composition of Mark after the death of Peter in Nero’s persecution in the mid-60’s. If it was in fact the first gospel written (which is not a terribly controversial assertion), how could dating the gospels three to six decades after the events possibly be considered radical skepticism?
ReplyDeleteEven if the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, we don’t really have any evidence that they were widely circulated during that time. Neither Paul nor the writers of the other epistles mention the gospels or demonstrate familiarity with them. It is not until the second century when all the original witnesses would have been gone that we start finding external references to the gospels.
I would also note that the man most responsible for spreading the faith was not an eyewitness. There could have many Pauline communities in which there was no eyewitness control. Paul’s letters contain many discussions of false teachings, but I really don’t see much to suggest that any of them were resolved by appealing to the testimony of the original disciples. In that regard, I find it particularly interesting that Paul does not appeal to any of the details found in the gospel accounts when he tries to explain the nature of the resurrection body to the Corinthians. I would think they would have been particularly helpful.
30 years is not radical. 2nd century is. 30 years is within the lifetime of witnesses.
ReplyDeleteYou can't appeal to Irenaeus without dealing with his assertion that Matthew was written first and before the death of Peter. In English, at least, it isn't clear when he thinks Luke was written, but from Acts it seems to be while Paul is alive.
Of course, if you are correct, you wouldn't expect the epistles to quote the gospels as they were all written first. But Paul does, in one place (2 Tim I think), seem to quote Luke.
"Paul does not appeal to any of the details found in the gospel accounts when he tries to explain the nature of the resurrection body to the Corinthians."
That Paul doesn't quote the gospels doesn't mean he didn't have the information; he certainly does appeal to a bodily resurrection that was witnessed by apostles and were certainly included in the gospel stories. But he wasn't trying to explain Christ's resurrection to them but their own.
"Even if the gospels were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, we don’t really have any evidence that they were widely circulated during that time."
Except Irenaeus'comment. Barring that, though, this is an argument from silence.
Was the Resurrection an illusion?
ReplyDeleteIt might not have been, but there are other kinds of fictions than illusion or plain lies.
Given that on those points where they can be verified they have shown to be reliable, and that they show every sign of trying to be honest with the accounts, I think we can we can be confident that the details they include -- e.g., the number of witnesses present, the eating of of solid objects -- can be useful to ask whether these people were suffering some kind of dilusion or were seeing something physical.
The old "if some of it's true, then all of it must be true" fallacy. A common technique to add credibility to works of imagination is to pepper them with facts.
I am not making an argument from silence. I am showing that the proposition that eyewitnesses were in a position to control the transmission of stories about Jesus is not supported by evidence.
ReplyDelete"The old "if some of it's true, then all of it must be true" fallacy."
ReplyDeleteRather, if that which can be verified has been shown to be true, for what reason do you doubt the rest?
"I am showing that the proposition that eyewitnesses were in a position to control the transmission of stories about Jesus is not supported by evidence."
Actually, you've been kind of all over the map on this. What reason do you have to believe that the second-hand (and occasionally first-hand, eg, John) accounts we have are corrupted?
Rather, if that which can be verified has been shown to be true, for what reason do you doubt the rest?
ReplyDeleteBecause the nature of history is that the stories that get told and retold and written down are often the ones that best serve the tellers' purposes rather than the ones that are best supported by the evidence. No historian would accept everything that Tacitus or Suetonius wrote simply because some things could be verified. Everything that ancient sources report is sifted and analyzed in order to figure out whether the thing reported is something that the source was in a position to know.
There is unfortunately no way to determine whether the gospel accounts are second hand or tenth hand. None of the authors name themselves as eyewitnesses or name any sources as eyewitnesses. You may choose to believe them as a matter of faith, but as a matter of history, they fall short.
"None of the authors name themselves as eyewitnesses or name any sources as eyewitnesses."
ReplyDeleteAgain, except John, universally acknowledged as the last of the canonical gospels to be written.
"There is unfortunately no way to determine whether the gospel accounts are second hand or tenth hand."
If they were tenth-hand, you would expect to see the crazy stuff you get in the 2nd century and later "gospels."
These, which in at least 2 cases claim to be first or second hand information, show signs that the authors were intending to be honest.
They show no sign of insertion by later parties -- e.g., Jesus addressing the controversy over circumcision.
There is evidence that the early Christians sought to preserve the words of Jesus (and presumably surrounding material) as distinct from later "revelation" or group decisions.
There is no reason to suspect large scale corruption of the canonical gospels. Even small scale issues (e.g., attempts at harmonizing) are probably later, but they are not something that affects the integrity of the story.
It looks like that is someone other than the author himself who is identifying the author of John as the “beloved disciple.” “We know that his testimony is true” isn’t anything the author would have written. Luke does not say that he got his information from eyewitnesses, but that it was “handed down” by eyewitnesses.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that the stories got crazier in the second century with the Gospel of Peter, but lets look at the progression: Paul—no mention of the empty tomb; Mark—empty tomb with one man; Matthew—empty tomb with one angel; Luke—two men; John—two angels; Peter—talking cross and gigantic angels. That looks to me like a growing legend rather than facts being reported.
I don’t know whether you saw the comments to my post “On the Reporting of Miracles,” but someone purporting to be Craig Blomberg acknowledged that the argument that the gospels were written in a “sober and responsible fashion” is “the most subjective argument” for the historicity of the miracles. Should I just believe that was really written by Blomberg or should I leave open the possibility that someone is just using that name like “Dobson” on your blog?
"It looks like that is someone other than the author himself who is identifying the author of John as the “beloved disciple.” "
ReplyDeleteUh-huh. Not too many doubt that someone else put the finishing touches on John. Not exactly earth shattering.
"Luke does not say that he got his information from eyewitnesses"
No, he says he "carefully investigated everything" -- suggesting talking to eye witnesses about what was "handed down by those who were eye witnesses." So he talked to them at some point in this process, and probably at both ends of it.
"Paul—no mention of the empty tomb"
Not terribly surprising. He was never defending the resurrection in any of his letters. In 1Cor 15 he defends the general resurrection by arguing from Christ's.
One angel to two is evolution? Man to angel? Since Luke calls them "men" (24:4) and "angels" (24:23), either this is evolving really fast, or perhaps you've misinterpreted what's going on.
"Should I just believe that was really written by Blomberg or should I leave open the possibility that someone is just using that name like “Dobson” on your blog?"
If what he's saying is consistent with what you already know of Blomberg, I guess you can't rule it out, but my guess would be the latter.
Rather, if that which can be verified has been shown to be true, for what reason do you doubt the rest?Supposing I wished to convince you that instead of driving to visit my parents last weekend, I simply jumped up into the air and flew...
ReplyDeleteI might pepper my account with facts and plausible sounding details. Would the inclusion of these details some of which could be verified make you more inclined to believe my story of flying like superman?
What if I were to include in my text an account of somebody who saw me flying? Possibly even a group of my friends who are convinced that I can fly? Would you believe me?
It's obvious that the addition of embellishments can serve to make an implausible story sound more plausible, however these embellishments are not evidence.
ChrisB's "evidence" consists of nothing more than scripture. The extent to which we believe in the resurrection is the extent to which we believe the Bible... and nothing more.
It seems highly unlikely that the early Christians mistakenly believed they had seen a resurrected Christ. Were they perhaps lying? We’ll look at that next time.Chris presents a typical apologist's false-dilemma: Is it absolute truth or utter lies? Are these the only two options you can think of? Perhaps it was myth? Perhaps it's a re-telling of a traditional story?
Did you watch last year's "Iron Man" movie? I'm sure you knew that Iron-man was a comic book hero from the mid 20th century, but the film showed the character in a world that looked like 2008.
Might Jesus be a bronze-age 'reboot' of myth of an incarnate man-god?
No, he says he "carefully investigated everything" -- suggesting talking to eye witnesses about what was "handed down by those who were eye witnesses." So he talked to them at some point in this process, and probably at both ends of it.This reminds me:
ReplyDeleteA few years ago I received an email from a Nigerian gentleman: He was offering me an astonishing proposal which if true would make me a lot of money. I was quite flattered that such an important person would choose me as his business partner.
Initially I was skeptical until I got to the bit where the author assured me that he'd "checked everything". He assured me that a fellow Nigerian lawyer had confirmed that it was all legal and perfectly safe.
I decided to use a technique that I learned from a Christian apologist called ChrisB to determine if this person could be trusted. I began by studying all of his emails:
I soon realized that his emails included incredibly accurate accounts of life in the city of Lagos, including Nigerian customs, the weather and even details about the layout of the city and even some interesting accounts of his friends and family.
When I was able to validate that much of his story was true, what reason did I have to doubt the rest? I felt like such a suspicious-minded fool for having doubted my new benefactor.
Some people think me credulous because I've invested a great deal of time and money in helping my Nigerian friend. It's true that I've not actually seen any financial payback from this investment, however my faith is that I shall one day receive a great reward.
People tell me that I'm wrong, however notion that it's all a deception seems very unlikely to me... after all who could possibly invent such a scheme?
I take pride in being a very skeptical person, in particular I am skeptical about anybody who tells me that I am wrong about my Nigerian friend.
:-)
Dobson, both of your comments center on one thing: if someone had sufficient incentive, they could make up something that sounds plausible. What incentive do you think they had to make up this story?
ReplyDelete"Might Jesus be a bronze-age 'reboot' of myth of an incarnate man-god?"
Which myth do you think they rebooted? What are the similarities? What are the differences? What evidence do you have that the similarities actually predate Christianity?
Myths usually start something like "once upon a time," not "in the days of Caesar Augustus, King Herod, and Quirinius." Do you have an example of an ancient myth that begins by establishing itself in what was then recent history?
What incentive do you think they had to make up this story?Why does anybody tell a story? For fame, to attract followers? For sheer pleasure of telling a tale? I can only guess. I know for a fact that authors can and do embellish stories for a wide range of reasons. Why do you assume that ancient writers couldnt do something which modern writers do with great ease.
ReplyDeleteOne cannot argue "since we do not imagine the motivations of the gospel writers it must be true" - one cannot safely infer anything at all from a lack of knowledge.
My original point was simply to refute your notion that if some of it could be proved true then all of it must be true. That's an obvious logical blunder - as illustrated by my Nigerian story.
Which myth do you think they rebooted?The gospels need not be a retelling of any single myth, in the same way that modern fiction is rarely derivative of any single source. I's more likely to be an amalgamation of many myths and mystery stories of the time.
For a modern parallel, Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus" is a great example of how an author can blend together contemporary myths in order to create something which is wholly new.
Even though the gospel story is an original assemblage of parts, the parts themselves were the myths and legends which existed before the gospels.
These parts need not have been pagan, however the Buddhists and Hindus had stories of incarnate man-gods who were killed and resurrected. The ancient Egyptians had the myth of Isis and Osiris in which an incarnate god was slain but rose more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
(sounds familiar....?)
Myths usually start something like "once upon a time," not "in the days of Caesar Augustus, King Herod, and Quirinius." Do you have an example of an ancient myth that begins by establishing itself in what was then recent history?Do they really?
Some myths make an appeal to antiquity (such as the ones you describe above), others go to great lengths to obscure their origins. For example the 2008 film "Batman, the dark night" is set in 2008 and not the the golden-age from which the character originated.
Comic-books are an excellent parallel because they are true modern myths. Everybody knows the story of Superman even if they've never read the books or seen the films because Superman is an embellished retelling of a myth in the same tradition of Jesus, Gilgamesh and so much more.
:-)