This video (which I can't seem to embed) is a presentation of some relatively new information showing the minor details of the gospels support the idea that the canonical gospels are (or at least are based on) eyewitness testimony (as opposed to later legends).
It's about 50 minutes long, but it's well worth your time.
16 comments:
Thanks I'll check it out!
I viewed the video over the weekend. On the practical side of the legitimacy of believing in Jesus and God, a reasonable approach to providing a historical foundation of biblical context is presented.
Sorry for the run on thought I have to get to work.
It's an interesting argument. I don't think that it is enough to establish that the gospels are based on eyewitnesses testimony, but it may be a good argument for preferring earlier dating.
Vinny,
You're right that it doesn't alone prove the Gospels are eye-witness accounts (a little hyperbole on my part), but as it does support earlier dates and sources from the area, and given the events of only a generation after the events of the Gospels (ie, the destruction of Jerusalem), it moves the likely dates of authorship firmly into the lifetime of the eye-witnesses. If they didn't write them, they certainly would have been able to correct them.
Based on what I have read about the early history of the Mormon Church, I don’t think that people who invent fantastic stories are in the least deterred by the possibility that someone who knows the truth will contradict them. There were many people who knew the truth about Joseph Smith and his activities, but his followers continued to tell whatever stories they thought would advance their agendas. They were occasionally forced to move when the truth became known, but the leaders of the church hardly ever changed the stories they told about themselves and the followers rarely accepted the word of outsiders over their leaders. If insiders tried to correct the leaders, they were driven out of the church.
@Vinny, that's a good point. There were multiple sworn witnesses who claimed to have seen Joseph Smith's golden tablets.
You might be amused to learn of the numerous eye-witnesses who claim to have seen the Indian charlatan Sathi Sai-Baba preform numerous "inexplicable miracles".
While some might conclude that this is evidence that the aforementioned cultists are pathological liars, might it also be that we are taking their "witness" out of context. These folks were engaged in apologetics rather than any kind of modern historical documentation.
It seems more plausible to me that the Gospels are works of imagination woven from pre-existing myth and earlier documents. There are far too many pagan parallels to the story of Jesus for anybody to ignore.
Personally I think the New Testament stories of Jesus are very flimsy evidence - I'm more persuaded by Robert M Price's theory that the story of Jesus is mostly a re-arrangement of old-testament and greek myth. The book(s) of Mormon provide a model for this sort of thing.
If I were forced into a position I'd say that the gospels were entirely pseudonymous.
Salim,
One thing Christianity had from the beginning that these others lacked was the ability to be disproved empirically. To shut down those trouble makers and make them the laughingstock of Judea, if not the whole ancient world, they only had to produce the body.
Christianity has, from the beginning, always claimed to be based on historical facts. They claimed that the stories were not simply fables, and if they were fables they were screwed. They set themselves up for failure if the Jews or the Romans just produced a body.
But this bit about the rewarmed pagan myths is overblown. There is little to no evidence these myths (in any form that resembled the stories about Christ) actually pre-date Christianity.
There is nothing in Paul's letters to indicate that anyone knew when or where the body of Jesus was buried. As I have pointed out on my blog, Paul doesn't even indicate when or where Jesus lived or died nor does he mention anything Jesus said or did anything during his life. There is very little in Paul that was subject to empirical verification.
Chris, first let me say thank you for engaging in debate. There are many Christian bloggers who would simply disallow competing opinions. I think you have the right attitude!
One thing Christianity had from the beginning that these others lacked was the ability to be disproved empirically. To shut down those trouble makers and make them the laughingstock of Judea, if not the whole ancient world, they only had to produce the body.
Of course lack of a body is also consistent with the theory that Jesus was not a historical person. That is the theory that I think is most plausible.
I think there are plenty of other reasons for dis-believing in the Jesus story. As I mentioned before, the fact that much older stories include similar themes and the generally implausible catalogue of events that allegedly took place during Jesus' short life. These are all good reasons to begin doubting that the Gospels are reliable eye-witness accounts.
Christianity has, from the beginning, always claimed to be based on historical facts. They claimed that the stories were not simply fables, and if they were fables they were screwed. They set themselves up for failure if the Jews or the Romans just produced a body.
Pretty much every mainstream religion I've ever looked into claims to have some kind of historical basis. In the case of Christianity, there are some quite famous problems with the gospel story such as the chronology of King Herrod and the non-existence of Nazereth as a settlement at the time.
I think you'd have to be a dedicated apologist to ignore the deviations from history in the NT. And of course, even most Christians accept that vast sections of the old testament (e.g. Genesis) are pure mythology.
Even if I were trying to be charitable to Christian beliefs we'd be forced to conclude that even if the biblical Jesus was partly based on a historical figure, the the historical and geographical setting of the stories include elements that are wholly imaginary.
But this bit about the rewarmed pagan myths is overblown. There is little to no evidence these myths (in any form that resembled the stories about Christ) actually pre-date Christianity.
I'm sure you are familiar with pre-Christian myths about god-men who came to earth. There are even ancient works of myth and fiction in which dead people come back to life, visit the underworld or ascended to heaven. Ancient people would have been familiar with these themes.
I'm not saying that the gospels are plagerised - only that the authors of the gospels drew upon the mythology of the era for inspiration in much the same way that modern fiction authors do.
I personally find it mystifying why apologists (of all religions) find it implausible that their scribes could have assembled their scripture from readily available components. Nobody finds it shocking when we learn that a comic-book from 2011 was based on a much older comic book story, or possibly a bunch of plot-elements from a number of older stories.
I think you might find this audio lectures fascinating - they cover some of the more obvious parallels in fascinating detail:
http://www.mnatheists.org/atheist_talk//07_03_31%20Ath%20Talk%20RMP%20Pagan%20Parallels%20to%20Christ%20Part%201.mp3
http://www.mnatheists.org/atheist_talk//07_03_31%20Ath%20Talk%20RMP%20Pagan%20Parallels%20to%20Christ%20Part%202.mp3
@Salim,
I've addressed some of your comments here: Jesus & Myth.
@Vinnie,
By now we're both well aware you're not going to change your stance no matter what I say.
@ChrisB - Thanks for addressing my comments.
I'm really not trying to change your mind. Even though I read pretty much everything you write I only feel moved to comment on what seems like bad apologetics.
I think it's totally fine that you have your beliefs and I really wouldn't want to be the one who changed your mind (assuming that it was possible) - I just wouldn't want that kind of responsibility.
I just get irked by what seems to me like somewhat stale apologetics... old lines that Christian missionaries trot out from time to time in the hope that they will end the debate. Actually I think that sometimes it just lowers the tone.
The thing that irks me about apologetics (of all faiths) is that it usually involves the use pious deception.
I'm not committed to any dogma of the non-existence of God/Jesus. I'd even be willing to believe in the existence of Allah, or the claims of L. Ron. Hubbard and Uri Geller if somebody could back up the claims with strong evidence. I don't think the evidence claimed by Christianity is any more credible than those of other faiths.
More comments on the other post.
ChrisB,
I think you could probably change my stance on whether “one thing Christianity had from the beginning that these others lacked was the ability to be disproved empirically.” However, to do so you would have to show me that very early sources show that Christians were making claims that were empirically falsifiable. I don’t think you can do this because the only falsifiable claims Paul makes are that the risen Christ appeared to various people, which is hard to disprove. Paul doesn’t claim that anyone knew where Jesus was buried or that anyone found the tomb empty.
Even if you could trace those claims to the earliest Christians, I think you would have a harder convincing me that the Christians could have been shut down by the production of a body. I don’t think history shows us that religious cults can be induced to abandon their beliefs merely by logically demonstrating that those beliefs don’t line up with the facts.
Vinny,
I agree with this point.
It's very unusual for members of any cult or religion to be open to have their beliefs falsified.
To take some examples at random: Joseph Smith's translations of his "Reformed Egyption" script - turned out to be an entirely fraudulent invention of the author. You'd think that the proof that Smith lied would damage his credibility, but no.
What about Yuri Geller's professed miracles. These have all been replicated by stage magicians, and Geller was once exposed on live TV. Nevertheless some people continue to believe that Geller has supernatural powers.
And who could forget James Randi's multiple exposes of Peter Popoff the faith-healer. The shams behind his claimed healings are well documented and yet he continues to rake in millions from credulous followers.
What can I say, other than point out that some eye witnesses are very easily fooled. And some people will not be convinced even when presented with overwhelming dis-confirming evidence. Such is the power of faith.
Vinny,
As recorded in Acts, the very first Christians started with "his body isn't there." The theme appears again in the NT: We do not follow cleverly devised fables. And the statement is explictly made: If Christ is not raised, we are all men to be most pitied.
They staked everything on the historicity of the physical resurrection of Christ. I know you like to separate Paul and his contemporaries, but more than a few people knew where the body was -- including the religious authorities in Jerusalem. When they were whipping John and Peter to shut them up, they would have drug out the body if they could have.
Actually the very first Christians started with "We have seen the risen Christ." In Acts 2:29, Peter points out that David had been buried and that his tomb was known to them, but he doesn't say anything about Jesus' empty tomb being known to anyone.
In any case, Acts is written several decades after the fact. I don't see how it is sufficient to establish that there actually was a window of opportunity in which production of a body would have had any effect, particularly since the earliest writings don't tell such a story.
As recorded in Acts, the very first Christians started with "his body isn't there." The theme appears again in the NT:
It's like the child who claims that his lack of homework is proof that the dog ate it. Any rational person would consider more plausible alternative theories, such as that the homework was never done in the first place!
Who knows how easily a body may have been hidden. Even if the body could definitively have been shown to be alive at some time in the past, the fact that a body was lost is not evidence of a resurrection since there are a hundred of more plausible means for a body to disappear.
The lack of a body (or the claimed lack of a body) is not really evidence that jesus existed or that he was resurrected any more than the lack of homework is proof of a naughty homework eating dog.
We do not follow cleverly devised fables.
That's clearly what you think. Most religious followers make similar claims about their own beliefs. It's meaningless bluster if you cannot back up your claims with hard evidence.
At least there's compelling evidence that Mohammed and Joseph Smith both existed (even if their tales of angelic revelation are obviously fabrications).
And the statement is explictly made: If Christ is not raised, we are all men to be most pitied.
That's only Christian dogma. Followers of other religions and followers of no religion at all seem to get on just fine without Jesus.
They staked everything on the historicity of the physical resurrection of Christ.
If you see a poker player up the ante does it prove he has a full house? He might be bluffing. The fact that he exposes himself to risk does not indicate that he's telling the truth!
I know you like to separate Paul and his contemporaries, but more than a few people knew where the body was
I don't think we know this for sure - yes, the Bible authors make this claim but there's no means of corroborating this claim outside of the text of the bible.
There's no reliable means of determining what people actually knew and whether their claims were truthful.
including the religious authorities in Jerusalem. When they were whipping John and Peter to shut them up, they would have drug out the body if they could have.
My first comment also applies here:
In any case, I don't see how you might claim to know what the ancient authorities knew and even if they did know we have no way of knowing whether they did have a policy of exhuming the corpses for such purposes.
In any case, we have no way of knowing whether the accounts of the apostles' treatment was accurate.
---
In all the cases above what you are doing is presenting reports of second hand evidence. None of it adds up to anything significant. I think it's dishonest for Christians to claim that their belief is based on hard objective evidence.
The "evidence" above only seems compelling if you first accept the honesty and accuracy of the gospels - in other words you presume they are truthful. I claim we have no right to do so in absence of independent corroborative evidence.
On the other hand, if you were to tell me that it's simply a matter of faith or some kind of personal revelation I'd actually have less of a problem with that. Id still disbelieve you but you'd be making a statement that I have no objective means of disproving.
Sal
Post a Comment